- From: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:38:38 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <8D5C5EE2-687B-4F8A-BA1A-908ADE03994C@openlinksw.com>
We were discussing "entity" again today... At least one person defined "entity" as "a description of a thing" based on the definition they read here -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Entities An entity is a kind of object that describes a time-slice of a thing, during which some of the thing's attributes are fixed. I submit that an "entity" is a "thing" which is identified by some set of immutable characteristics (which set may or may not be fully defined -- much as philosophy continues to debate what set of immutable characteristics defines a particular person, the more so given such personality changes as may be observed following various injuries or pharmaceutical treatments). When an immutable characteristic changes, one entity becomes another. When a mutable characteristic changes, the entity remains the same, but its description (and one might say, its provenance) changes. That discussion arose in context of the "Entity Invalidation" proposal found here -- <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-misc.html#Proposal%201:%20On%20Entity%20Invalidation> The examples seen there were confusing (conflating a web address with the entity/ies to which the address may be dereferenced) and not compelling to the audience at hand. I had some hopefully more compelling, and also hopefully less confusing, examples which I was asked to post to the list. Herewith... A "tree" comprises some amount of "wood". When the "tree" is felled, one might say it is no longer a "tree" (it no longer stands; the stump which remains was once an integral part of the tree; it no longer sprouts leaves; etc.)... Let us say that the wood which comprised the bulk of that tree is transformed into a table. The table is a new entity -- immutable characteristics include the carpenter who constructed it, the "tabletop" surface on which things may be placed, and the legs which hold it off the floor. Mutable characteristics not relevant to its "table-ness" include its color, its exact shape, its height. I might cut a round table into a square, paint it, or shorten its legs, without it becoming a new entity. If any of the immutable characteristics are removed or destroyed -- for instance, if the whole is broken into pieces such that it cannot perform as a table -- the "table" entity is no more. However -- the wood remains. In the framework of the "entity" definition I quoted earlier, the "table" is a time-slice of the "wood". The *tree* is a time-slice of the "wood". Many characteristics of the wood change -- but it remains the wood of the original tree. At some point, the wood -- even the entire table -- may be thrown on a bonfire, and the entirety may be consumed. The table entity is no more -- the required characteristics are no longer present. The *wood* entity is no more -- it has been consumed by fire, and transformed into ash. During the call, I suggested another example which (I think) lends strong support to the need for a "destruction" or similar construct which corresponds to "generation" or "creation". A "Great Master" "creates" a "painting". The "painting" "hangs" in a "museum". The "museum" and all works therein are "consumed" by a "fire". Witnesses see this particular "painting" so "consumed". Years later, a "painting" looking very much like the original comes up for auction... Real-world Provenance cries out for the ability to say that the museum piece *was* destroyed, so this work being auctioned *cannot* be (or at least, it is highly doubtful that it is) the same entity. Real-world Provenance also allows for the possibility that the entity consumed in the fire was not the "original" which is now on auction -- that the burned painting was a forgery... But *something* was burned, was destroyed, can no longer be sold. Hopefully this exploration is helpful ... Regards, Ted -- A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html | Q: Are you sure? | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900 x32 Evangelism & Support // mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com // http://twitter.com/TallTed OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://www.openlinksw.com/ 10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803 Weblog -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/ LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/ Twitter -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink Google+ -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/ Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 16:39:06 UTC