- From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:38:39 -0400
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jim, EntityState is the same as pil:thing. It was felt that the terminology before the f2f was just not intuitive enough. We agreed on the use of the word entity instead of stuffs. EnityState was not agreed upon but began to be used instead of our pil:thing and the placeholder name "bob". However, I think that state has connotations that we do not want to give. However we are still in search of a better name. Does that clarify things, Paul On Jul 7, 2011, at 15:43, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: > Not being at the meeting (wish I could be!), it is not clear whether this represents a shift in thinking about things and invariant views or perspectives on things or not. I think a critical aspect of going away from the word state was that I don't think we are talking about states - a file is not a state of a document whereas it could be a view/perspective of a document, e.g. something in a different ontology that shares state/real stuff with the first thing. Does this issue represent a shift back towards a model based on states? Or is it just shorthand for needing to describe when two things are views/perspectives of something? > > Jim > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:34 PM >> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org >> Subject: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to >> the same entity >> >> >> ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same >> entity >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/28 >> >> Raised by: >> On product: >> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 22:39:16 UTC