- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:08:46 +0200
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoJK7n6q-m-G-DfxmDo271ua4S9wyZxLnnHYSy9azzJ=A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Khalid, I think entity is pretty loose so it's going to be hard to misuse... :-) but I think that was the whole point. cheers Paul On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Khalid Belhajjame < Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > The response to this issue is thorough and I think we should go ahead with > it. > However, I think that the reviewer is right: identifying what an > entity is may be difficult for prov users (compared for example to > Activity which is simple and clear), and I am anticipating that the > entity concept will be mis-used more than others. > > Thanks, khalid > > On 22 October 2012 10:50, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I have drafted a response to the following issue. See > > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-462_.28Definition_of_Entity.29 > > > > I will implement the changes once I have a confirmation > > the group is happy with them, and they satisfactorily address the issue. > > > > > > ISSUE-462 (Definition of Entity) > > > > Original email: > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Jul/0009.html > > Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/462 > > Group Response: > > > > The term 'entity' is intentionally defined in a liberal manner to avoid > > restricting users expressivity. Obviously, it shouldn't be too liberal, > > otherwise it would be all encompassing, without clear semantics. > > The term 'entity' (and associated notions such as 'alternate', > > 'specialization') have been the subject of intense debate by the Working > > Group, and the definition reflects the compromise reached by the Working > > Group. > > The term 'aspect' is not used here with a technical meaning and should be > > understood with its dictionary meaning 'A particular part or feature of > > something'. > > PROV-Constraints, in its rationale section, expands on the notion of > entity. > > While an object/thing may change over time, an entity fixes some aspects > of > > that thing for a period of time (in between its generation and > > invalidation). As opposed to other models of provenance (such as OPM), an > > entity is not an absolute state snapshot. Instead, it is a kind of > partial > > state, just fixing some aspects. The rationale for this design decision > is > > that it is quite challenging to find absolute state snapshots that do not > > change: the location of a file on a cloud changes, the footer of this Web > > page changes (as more people access it), etc. Hence, by allowing some > > aspects (as opposed to all) to be fixed, the PROV concept of 'entity' is > > easy to use. > > We distinguish an 'aspect' from an 'attribute'. An attribute-value pair > > represents additional information about an entity (or activity, agent, > > usage, etc). In the case of an entity, attribute-value pairs provide > > descriptions of fixed aspects. So, the term 'aspect' refers to > properties of > > the thing, whereas the term 'attribute' refers to its description in > PROV. > > PROV does *NOT* assume that all fixed aspects are described by > > attribute-value pairs. So, there may be some fixed aspects that have not > > been described. Obviously, without description, it's difficult to query > or > > search over them. > > According to PROV Constraint key-object (constraint 23), an entity has a > set > > of attributes given by taking the union of all the attributes found in > all > > descriptions of that entity. In other words, PROV does not allow for > > different attribute-value pairs to hold in different intervals for a > given > > entity. > > The attribute-value pairs of an entity provide information for some of > the > > fixed aspects of an entity. > > > > This point may not have been clear, and requires text modification. (see > > below) > > > > A specific attribute of an entity is its identity. It is also assumed > that > > it holds for the duration of the entity lifetime. > > > > This point may not have been clear, and requires text modification. (see > > below) > > > > References: > > > > PROV constraints rationale: > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#entities--activities-and-agents > > entity/specialization/alternate definitions: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/SpecializationAlternateDefinitions > > Resolution on entity/specialization/alternate: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-03#resolution_2 > > Key Constraints definition: > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#dfn-key-constraints > > Key-Object constraint 23: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#key-object > > > > Proposed Changes to the document: > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#entity.attributes: instead of > "representing > > additional information about this entity." write "representing additional > > information about the fixed aspects of this entity." > > http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-identifier: add the following. > > > > Entity, Activity, and Agent have a mandatory identifier. Two entities > (resp. > > activities, agents) are equal if they have the same identifier. > > Generation, Usage, Communication, Start, End, Invalidation, Derivation, > > Attribution, Association, Delegation, Influence have an optional > identifier. > > Two generations (resp. usages, communications, etc.) are equal if they > have > > the same identifier. > > > > > > > > > > Luc > > > > > > > > On 07/25/2012 08:16 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > > > PROV-ISSUE-462 (entity-definition-precision): Definition o entity may be > too > > liberal [prov-dm] > > > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/462 > > > > Raised by: Paul Groth > > On product: prov-dm > > > > This is the issue for > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Jul/0009.html > > > > from Jacco van Ossenbruggen > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Professor Luc Moreau > > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > > > > -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science - The Network Institute VU University Amsterdam
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 09:09:14 UTC