RE: [higgins-dev] Another perspective on "entity"

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx>]

yea i realize that and that is a problem as a group is a bad term, there is no need for a group, the term Identity does not exist in the data model its an abstract way to reference a entity. An entity can have relationship to other entities.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

"Steven Churchill" ---03/07/2008 02:29:28 PM---Anthony,

From:	"Steven Churchill" <steven.churchill@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	"'Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions'" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:	<higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	03/07/2008 02:29 PM
Subject:	RE: [higgins-dev] Another perspective on "entity"

---

Anthony,
 
In the simple identity model that I discuss, a “group” is a collection of entities, and “identity” is simply that (whatever it may be) which is used to distinguish entities within the given context. This is a natural every day (simple) definition of identity. 
 
 
~ Steve
 
PS: The “SIM” abstract model doesn’t have to deal with the concept of “representation”, because the representation is “spun off” and defined in a separate concrete SIM.

---

From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:04 PM
To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
Cc: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'; higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Another perspective on "entity"

So my take is that and Entity is a "thing" and Identity is a representation of 1 or more Entities.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

"Steven Churchill" ---03/07/2008 01:53:30 PM---Now that Drummond has ended this thread, it’s my turn to chime in. (Just kidding, Drummond. J)

From:	"Steven Churchill" <steven.churchill@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	"'Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions'" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	03/07/2008 01:53 PM
Subject:	RE: [higgins-dev] Another perspective on "entity"

---

Now that Drummond has ended this thread, it’s my turn to chime in. (Just kidding, Drummond. J)
Personally, I think that the notions below of entity, representation, digital identity and the like are way over complicated. I prefer using an abstract identity model with very simple notions of entity and identity. I blog about it here. http://stevenchurchillsblog.blogspot.com/ 
Just my 2 cents.
~ Steve

---

From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:15 AM
To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'; <Higgins dev
Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Another perspective on "entity"

Jim, I know it seems like overkill on the smallest semantic detail, but in my experience when it comes to abtract data models, this is where the war can be won or lost.
I also wanted to document the decision so when the next Higgins newbie asks what we mean by “Entity” we have a clear answer.
<END OF THREAD> ;-)

---

From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:28 AM
To: Higgins dev <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] Another perspective on "entity"

Next time my wife accuses me of over-thinking things, I'm going to subject her to this thread :)

>>> "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 03/06/08 11:21 PM >>>
The table Paul sent yesterday made me realize there's a different way to
think about our usage of the word "entity" in the Higgins data model (one
that aligns with what I think Tony and Mike have been saying).

The realization was that a pure Higgins Entity -- a single raw node in the
Higgins Global Graph -- is not actually a Resource because, until you add at
least one Attribute, it is not even identifiable (which is a requirement of
an Identity -- ITU definition -- or a Resource -- IETF/W3C RFC 3986
definition).

In other words, if the label "Entity" simply refers to a graph node
representing the pure concept of Entity, then it does not become any form of
"representation" of the Entity until you begin adding Attributes that turn
an Entity into an Identity. (That explains why Entity and Node seem so
interchangeable.)

If we take this approach, it eliminates the conflict with either the ITU or
IDGang. The table looks like this:

Concept Higgins ITU GangLexicon W3C
------- ------- ----- ----------- ---
Thing Entity Entity Entity Resource
Representation Identity Identity Digital Identity Representation

=Drummond

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevithick [mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:55 AM
> To: Drummond Reed
> Cc: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
> Subject: RE: Paul: "Represented Entity" ==> "Resource"?
>
> So then we'd have:
>
> Concept Higgins ITU GangLexicon W3C
> ------- ------- ----- ----------- ---
> The thing Resource Entity Entity Resource
> Representation Entity Identity Digital Identity Representation
>
>
> Do I have this right?
>
> -Paul

_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev