- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:17:15 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On May 25, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > Stephan Zednik wrote: >>> That term has a more specific meaning in the context of HTTP: >>> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html >>> >>> #g >>> -- >> Thanks. >> I prefer the following definition from the New Oxford American Dictionary: >> entity |ˈentitē| >> noun ( pl. -ties)a thing with distinct and independent existence : church and empire werefused in a single entity.• existence; being : entity and nonentity./ >> / I think it would very much be a mistake to use any terminology in the context of HTTP in our conceptual model of provenance. > > I have sympathy with this view, but we might also consider our target audience who I think will, on average, be those who have some familiarity with terminology used in a web context (i.e. web developers, etc.). We should, of course, be specific regarding the intended semantics of terms in our conceptual model. > > If we choose to use the term "entity" in its non-technical sense, we might also consider highlighting the fact that a "provenance entity" is not the same as an "HTTP entity". I think we are in agreement. I would not call it a "provenance entity" though. It could simply be an "entity" as defined in our provenance conceptual model, and its definition would clearly differentiate it from the technical term "HTTP entity". --Stephan > > #g > -- > >
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 15:17:48 UTC