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

Hi Luc

I think the definition is fine. If anything the first sentence should be dropped.

The fact that we can lookup the provenance of other things is beside the point...


Regards
Paul 

On Apr 3, 2012, at 0:03, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Jim,
> 
> I don't think that's what we want.
> prov:Entity is essentially a continuent, whereas prov:activity is an occurrent.
> 
> What's a simpler way of defining prov:entity?
> 
> Luc
> 
> On 02/04/12 22:57, Jim McCusker wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> 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
>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>> 
>> PhD Student
>> Tetherless World Constellation
>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
>> http://tw.rpi.edu