- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:57:16 -0700
- To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Cc: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Yes, "thing" is much better. I also though of something like "entries" for "entries in the authority file." But "things" is good. - kc Quoting Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>: > Hey - I like it! :-) Much better than "entity"... > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:33:14PM -0400, Marcia Zeng wrote: >> Tim Berners-Lee used 'identify things'...[1] :-) >> >> Marcia >> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html >> >> On 9/5/11 10:25 PM, "Tom Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote: >> >> >Yeah - won't work... But I share Karen's dislike of "entity". >> > >> >Tom >> > >> >On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 09:56:05PM -0400, Jeff Young wrote: >> >> An RDF audience will read "individual" as an instance of any type. A >> >>library >> >> audience will possibly assume "individual" refers to an individual >> >>person. >> >> God help us. >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 05:30:43PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote: >> >> > so maybe: >> >> > >> >> > Among these are authority files, whose members identify individual >> >> > entities (I don't like that term), and controlled lists of values. >> >> >> >> Or simply: "whose members identify individuals"? Or does that >> >> imply too strongly "individual people"...? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org> > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 13:57:47 UTC