- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:22:27 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham, Are you suggesting that the OWL class should become EntityAssertion? and in the provenance abstract syntax notation we write entityAssertion(...)? Luc On 09/05/2011 04:13 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > 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. >> -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 16:23:00 UTC