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

Re: prov-dm expression: a proposal to vote on (deadline Wednesday midnight GMT)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:52:39 +0000
Message-ID: <4EAE7DF7.3030102@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+0  (i.e. OK with change, but not strongly).

Essentially, same comment as Simon

Also, IMO, the data model *is* a kind of language, hence not seeing problem with 
"expression".

#g
--

On 28/10/2011 15:17, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> In the interest of simplification, we would like to make the following
> proposal about terminology in prov-dm.
>
> The context:
>
> Following this week's call, the prov-dm document will introduce
> concepts such as entity and activity in section 2, and define 'entity
> expression' and 'activity expression' in section 5. In section 5 (see
> table of contents of [1]), all terms of the data model have been
> suffixed by the suffix 'expression', which allows us to distinguish
> terms of the data model (i.e. what we say in provenance records) from
> the things in the world.
>
>
> The problem:
>
> While this distinction is important, the choice of word is not ideal.
> The suffix 'expression' has a strong connotation of language, and the reader may
> think that we talk about expressions in the abstract syntax notation.
> It's not the case! We really mean elements of the data model.
>
> Proposal:
> /Rename 'Entity Expression' into 'Entity Record'; similarly, rename 'XXX
> Expression' into 'XXX Record'./
>
> Can you please express your support for this proposal by Wednesday
> midnight GMT, and we will confirm it at the next teleconference.
>
> Luc
>
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 11:01:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:46 GMT