W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Recommendations -- authority files and discrete values

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:57:16 -0700
Message-ID: <20110906065716.16527a2wqq8nvlq4@kcoyle.net>
To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Yes, "thing" is much better. I also though of something like "entries"  
for "entries in the authority file." But "things" is good. - kc

Quoting Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:

> Hey - I like it! :-)  Much better than "entity"...
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:33:14PM -0400, Marcia Zeng wrote:
>> Tim Berners-Lee used 'identify things'...[1] :-)
>>
>> Marcia
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
>>
>> On 9/5/11 10:25 PM, "Tom Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah - won't work...  But I share Karen's dislike of "entity".
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >
>> >On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 09:56:05PM -0400, Jeff Young wrote:
>> >> An RDF audience will read "individual" as an instance of any type. A
>> >>library
>> >> audience will possibly assume "individual" refers to an individual
>> >>person.
>> >> God help us.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 05:30:43PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> >> > so maybe:
>> >> >
>> >> > Among these are authority files, whose members identify individual
>> >> > entities (I don't like that term), and controlled lists of values.
>> >>
>> >> Or simply: "whose members identify individuals"?  Or does that
>> >> imply too strongly "individual people"...?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
> --
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 13:57:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 6 September 2011 13:57:49 GMT