W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-223 (definition-of-entity): What is the definition of entity [prov-dm]

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:57:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TE9tUceZqjseweoZyqoVBBLKaJBYDrj2w3eOf6+gb62w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
For what it's worth, this would align with the Basic Formal Ontology
definition of Entity:

Entity is a Continuent or Occurrent.

Continuent: An entity [bfo:Entity] that exists in full at any time in which
it exists at all, persists through time while maintaining its identity and
has no temporal parts.

Occurrent: An entity [bfo:Entity] that has temporal parts and that happens,
unfolds or develops through time. Sometimes also called perdurants.


On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> **
> All,
> We are now defining entity as follows:
> *An entity is a thing one wants to provide provenance for. For the
> purpose of this specification, things can be physical, digital, conceptual,
> or otherwise; things may be real or imaginary.*
> Unfortunately, we also provide provenance for activities, etc.
> Last week, we agreed we could query the provenance of anything that was
> identifiable.
> So, the definition of entity is too broad.
> How should it be revised?  Can reviewers think about it?
> Regards,
> Luc
> On 19/01/12 09:15, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-223 (definition-of-entity): What is the definition of entity [prov-dm]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/223
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
> The prov-dm documents has some form of definition for entity [1] and entity record [2] (likewise, activity [5] and activity record [6]).
> Recent discussions indicate that the definitions are not rigorous enough, and subject to too much interpretation.
> Indications that an entity can potentially characterize multiple things [3], or that an entity is a class definition [4] are examples of the breadth of interpretation.
> The WG should aim to refine these definitions.
> [1]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#concept-entity
> [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-Entity
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jan/0213.html
> [4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jan/0219.html
> [5]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#concept-activity
> [6]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-Activity

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 21:58:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:11 UTC