- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:13:44 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Luc, The problem is that the term "Entity" suggests the things rather than the assertion about the thing. It's taken me a while to figure out that's not how you are currently using it. I think others could have a similar problem. Personally, I'd go with Simon's definition for "Entity", and use "Entity assertion" for the PIDL construct: I think those terms better match people's expectations of what they mean, and clearly expose how they are related. #g -- On 05/09/2011 08:23, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Simon, > > I don't know what you have gained by introducing this definition, except > a more compact terminology. We have tried to use "identifiable characterized thing" > consistently across the text, to refer to this concept. > > There was a *very strong* indication (at F2F and after) from the WG, that > we should not use the same label for the PIDM construct and the concept. > As editors, we have followed the WG wish. > > For this reason, I am proposing not to change the text. Instead, we should > talk about "identifiable characterized thing". > > Same comment applies to activity vs process execution. > > Cheers, > Luc > > > PS ISSUE-85 > > On 09/03/2011 03:40 PM, Simon Miles wrote: >> Defn 1. An entity*is* an identifiable characterized thing. >
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 15:24:09 UTC