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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:01:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4EB2666C.8030003@ninebynine.org>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
"inferred statement" seems quite natural to me :)

#g
--

On 02/11/2011 15:51, James Cheney wrote:
> 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 Thursday, 3 November 2011 12:42:12 UTC

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