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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-1 (define-resource): Definition for concept 'Resource' [Provenance Terminology]

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:17:15 -0600
Cc: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C4633165-FB88-4550-87F9-A73B6719DC46@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>

On May 25, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>> That term has a more specific meaning in the context of HTTP:
>>> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html
>>> #g
>>> --
>> Thanks.
>> I prefer the following definition from the New Oxford American Dictionary:
>> entity |ˈentitē|
>> noun ( pl. -ties)a thing with distinct and independent existence : church and empire werefused in a single entity.• existence; being : entity and nonentity./
>> / I think it would very much be a mistake to use any terminology in the context of HTTP in our conceptual model of provenance.
> I have sympathy with this view, but we might also consider our target audience who I think will, on average, be those who have some familiarity with terminology used in a web context (i.e. web developers, etc.).

We should, of course, be specific regarding the intended semantics of terms in our conceptual model.

> If we choose to use the term "entity" in its non-technical sense, we might also consider highlighting the fact that a "provenance entity" is not the same as an "HTTP entity".

I think we are in agreement.  I would not call it a "provenance entity" though.  It could simply be an "entity" as defined in our provenance conceptual model, and its definition would clearly differentiate it from the technical term "HTTP entity".


> #g
> --
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 15:17:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:04 UTC