- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 07:32:59 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc, I've been reflecting on our discussion, and I think I may have got to the root of my misunderstanding. To test this, I propose below an alternative phrasing of the definition of "Entity" - can you confirm whether or not this reflects what you mean: ---- An entity is an assertion about a characterized thing. Using the Provenance Abstract Syntax Notation, an entity is represented as: entity(e,[a1:v1, a2:v2, ...]) where "e" is a name that denotes the characterized thing about which provenance is expressed, and the "ai:vi" are assertions about attributes of that thing. The entity is true exactly when all of the attribute assertions are true of the named thing. For example, the entity represented by: entity(e0, [ type: "File", location: "/shared/crime.txt", creator: "Alice" ]) might be interpreted as asserting that the thing denoted by "e0" is a file whose file system location is "/shared/crime.txt", and which was created by "Alice". ---- If this correctly reflects what you mean by "entity", then I have two specific comments about the present text: (1) the term "entity" is confusing when used in this way. My interpretation and understanding of this word leads me to expect an entity to *be* the thing about which provenance is asserted, not the assertion. (2) the phrase "An Entity represents an identifiable characterized thing" is confusing, in that the use of "represents" here is not the usage that I would expect. Based on the above, I would say instead "An Entity represents an assertion about an identifiable characterized thing". Also, if the above text reflects your intended meaning, then many of my other comments have their roots in this misunderstanding. #g --
Received on Saturday, 3 September 2011 06:33:43 UTC