- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:22:27 -0700
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Kingsley, I agree with Erik. Resource is the term everyone seems to agree on. And "entity", too, is overloaded. For example the "Entity-Relationship model" On an earlier point you made, I agree that "denotes" is a good word. So, a URI denotes a resource, which may have several representations. All the best, Ashok On 10/4/2012 4:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 10/4/12 6:49 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote: >> hello kingsley. >> >>> +1 >> thanks! >> >>> To something along the following lines: >>> The Web can enables *entities* to be *denoted* by any (registered) >>> URI scheme. >>> These entities can be represented by content associated with any >>> (registered) media type. >>> In many cases, applications establish specific (i.e., typed) relations >>> between entities, which can either be under their control, or >>> controlled by another authority. >> i'd rather stick with the term "resource", which is well established in >> many of the core web standards. > > I know you think that's the case, based on material out there. But, its going to change. Resource is an overloaded term. > >> "entity" not so much, so while in the end >> it's just a different label for the same concept, it is one that i don't >> want to introduce. > > You aren't really introducing anything, you are realigning with what already exists in literature that precedes the Web [1][2]. > >> and i am not quite sure what you think you're getting >> out of using this different label? > > Clarity is always my fundamental goal, use of existing (pre Web) terminology for the same fundamental concepts so that bridges can be built with other communities en route to a cohesive continuum. Disconnecting existing communities (many of which have long mastered these concepts) via choice of terminology ultimately stifles adoption. > > > Links: > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93relationship_model -- Entity modelling > 2. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-07/msg00190.html -- a related discussion on the ontolog forum that actually reached amicable conclusion re. this matter. >> >> cheers, >> >> dret. >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 23:22:58 UTC