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

0
(no objection to the proposal, but don't find 'expression' problematic either)

Simon

On 28 October 2011 15:33, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> +1
> -Paolo
>
> On 10/28/11 3:17 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> In the interest of simplification, we would like to make the following
> proposal about terminology in prov-dm.
>
> The context:
>
> Following this week's call, the prov-dm document will introduce
> concepts such as entity and activity in section 2, and define 'entity
> expression' and 'activity expression' in section 5.  In section 5 (see
> table of contents of [1]), all terms of the data model have been
> suffixed by the suffix 'expression', which allows us to distinguish
> terms of the data model (i.e. what we say in provenance records) from
> the things in the world.
>
>
> The problem:
>
> While this distinction is important, the choice of word is not ideal.
> The suffix 'expression' has a strong connotation of language, and the reader
> may
> think that we talk about expressions in the abstract syntax notation.
> It's not the case!  We really mean elements of the data model.
>
> Proposal:
> Rename 'Entity Expression' into 'Entity Record'; similarly, rename 'XXX
> Expression' into 'XXX Record'.
>
> Can you please express your support for this proposal by Wednesday
> midnight GMT, and we will confirm it at the next teleconference.
>
> Luc
>
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 14:38:16 UTC