- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:55:24 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- CC: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Jim McCusker wrote: > I think we're still going around in circles. +1 > Entity: A thing in the world, can be represented by, for instance, a > URI. That URI, in PIL, is a pil:Entity. +1/0 > BOB: A description of an entity constrained by context (including time > and place). The description is not the entity, even within our > information representation. A BOB must be able to refer to something. > That BOB is a description of an entity, but does not REPRESENT the > entity. This is where I think we're circling. In my view a BOB is *not* a "description of an entity constrained by context, it's just "an entity constrained by context". "entities" *and* "constrained entities" may be described... #g -- > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would advise against using the same terms with different typographical >> convention :-) >> >> what the document perhaps needs to clarify more upfront is that there is a >> "real world" and then a model of it, and the constructs of the language are >> about the model. It does say that but perhaps not strongly enough. >> - Characterized entity belongs in the world >> - BOBs belong in the data model that is a representation of the world. >> These two levels are never conflated. >> >> The good old "record linkage" community (data quality in databases) never >> had any qualms about using "real-world entities", as in "reconciling >> different records (BOBs?) that represent the same real-world entity". >> In their world (pun intended :-)), a record is a very concrete data >> structure that sits in a data store and you can display on a screen. >> Now, we cannot use "record", we have ruled out "information(al) resource"... >> but isn't that basically the territory? >> Entity representation? >> >> -Paolo >> >> >> On 7/21/11 8:33 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Hi Khalid, >> OK. This said we have over 20 occurrences of "characterized entity" in the >> text. >> >> We can't simply use the "expansion" everywhere. Having some terminology is >> desirable. >> >> Do you have a suggestion? >> >> We could also go for a typographic difference: >> BOB -> CharacterizedEntity >> and we keep 'characterized entity' elsewhere. >> >> Luc >> >> On 21/07/2011 20:27, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >> >> Hi Luc, >> >> I guess I used the wrong term, "interchangeable". I guess that what I meant >> is that "Characterized Entity" can be considered as a candidate to replace >> "BOB". Of course, in that case, we will need to avoid the usage of the the >> term "characterized entity" in the core of the definition. E.g., we can use >> the following definition: >> >> A "Characterized Entity" is a description of the situation of an entity in >> the world. >> >> Or something in these lines. >> >> Thanks, khalid >> >> On 21/07/2011 19:54, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Hi Khalid, >> >> As far as I know, they are *not* interchangeable. One is the language >> construct, the other is "in the world". >> >> cf. definition: >> >> A BOB represents an identifiable >> characterized entity. >> >> Should we go for "Characterized Entity", we need a typographic >> convention to distinguish between >> >> the construct and the world-thing, otherwise, the reader will never >> know whether this is language construct >> >> or not. >> >> >> Luc >> >> On 21/07/2011 19:45, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >> >> In the Provenance Model initial draft, the terms "Bob" and "characterized >> entity" are used interchangeably. >> Characterized entity seems then to be a candidate for replacing BOB. >> >> Thanks, khalid >> >> On 21/07/2011 19:30, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? >> [Conceptual Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/30 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: Conceptual Model >> >> How do we call the construct referred to as BOB. "BOB" was introduced as a >> placeholder at F2F1. Before F2F1, we use to refer to it as thing. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ----------- ~oo~ -------------- >> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org >> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK >> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 22:00:02 UTC