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

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

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:51:49 +0000
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <649C6629-623D-4F02-9211-806647B16BB1@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
I suppose "statement" has a similar problem to "assertion" though - e.g. "inferred statement" sounds a little strange too (to me).  

--James

On Nov 2, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:

> Hi,
> I like James suggestion for using "Statement" instead of either "expression" or "record".
> 
> 0 (in favor of "Entity statement", "xxx statement").
> 
> Best,
> Satya
> 
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:01 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> 0 - I think either "expression" or "record" is fine.  "Statement" would also be fine - in my view these are closer to declarative statements than "expressions" that you'd evaluate in a programming language.  "Record" might be confusing if the entities are also records, but this is true for "expression" and "statement" too.
> 
> --James

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 15:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:03 UTC