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

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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
> http://tw.rpi.edu