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

Re: Is _this_ what is meant by "Entity"?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:13:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4E64E728.3080809@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org

The problem is that the term "Entity" suggests the things rather than the 
assertion about the thing.  It's taken me a while to figure out that's not how 
you are currently using it.  I think others could have a similar problem.

Personally, I'd go with Simon's definition for "Entity", and use "Entity 
assertion" for the PIDL construct:  I think those terms better match people's 
expectations of what they mean, and clearly expose how they are related.


On 05/09/2011 08:23, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> I don't know what you have gained by introducing this definition, except
> a more compact terminology. We have tried to use "identifiable characterized thing"
> consistently across the text, to refer to this concept.
> There was a *very strong* indication (at F2F and after) from the WG, that
> we should not use the same label for the PIDM construct and the concept.
> As editors, we have followed the WG wish.
> For this reason, I am proposing not to change the text. Instead, we should
> talk about "identifiable characterized thing".
> Same comment applies to activity vs process execution.
> Cheers,
> Luc
> On 09/03/2011 03:40 PM, Simon Miles wrote:
>> Defn 1. An entity*is* an identifiable characterized thing.
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 15:24:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:08 UTC