Re: Issue 89 - why?

Hi Khalid and Graham,

Attributes help characterize a thing in the world.
Provenance helps explain why these attributes have specific values.
In particular, constraints such as
link attribute values to something in the provenance of an entity.

In addition, there may be arbitrary properties that are not attributes, i.e.
they are not characterizing a thing.
For instance, the model document mentions the icon used to render an 
entity graphically.

If an entity is given arbitrary properties,  I think it's important 
whether this
is a characterizing attribute (for which we may find an explanation in 
the provenance),
or whether this is a non characterizing property (which may have nothing 
to with
the thing in the world, as the icon example).


On 17/09/11 11:55, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
> On 17/09/2011 08:07, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> I've been reading some of the discussion of Issue 89:
>> which seems to my mind be getting rather like a counting of 
>> angels-on-pinheads, and I wonder if we're not in danger of 
>> over-ontologizing here.
>> Going back to the original issue, I see:
>> [[
>> The conceptual model defines an entity in terms of an identifier and 
>> a list of attribute-value pairs. It is indeed crucial for the 
>> asserter to identify the attributes that have been frozen in a given 
>> entity.
>> ]]
>> Why is it so crucial to identify what attributes have been frozen?
>> What practical application of provenance is prevented is we don't 
>> require this?
> I second that. Furthermore, I don't see the point of declaring 
> attributes that are not instanciated in the context of the entity.
> Khalid
>> #g
>> -- 

Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 15:36:31 UTC