- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:52:39 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+0 (i.e. OK with change, but not strongly). Essentially, same comment as Simon Also, IMO, the data model *is* a kind of language, hence not seeing problem with "expression". #g -- On 28/10/2011 15:17, 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 > > >
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 11:01:04 UTC