W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:48:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4E289EA7.5030005@ninebynine.org>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
No, this issue goes deeper... we need more than a mere alpha conversion, IMO.  I 
think we need to eliminate the free variable named "bob".

I do intend to read the draft and try and figure a proposal, but focusing on 
deckchair-rearranging doesn't really help.

I'd like to see this issue dropped until a more substantive approach can be 
proposed.  You did say that issues raised against document should ideally come 
with proposals for alternatives, no?

#g
--

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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 21:59:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT