[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [higgins-dev] With 7 people having voted so far...
|
I agree with what you're saying about dropped modifiers but if, for the sake of argument, we end up with Entity, what would be wrong with "officially" calling it a Digital Entity in documentation, code, etc. and then dealing with the consequences of some occasional droppage?
Frankly, I think that's where we were with "Digital Subject" before we started this ... (ummm, what's a good modifier?) ... highly productive adventure! ;)
Tom
>>> "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 02/25/08 12:47 AM >>>
Tony, I'm curious about this. In an earlier post Mike said:
"There will always be a potential for confusion between juridical entity and
digital entity, or subject and digital subject, or principal and ... Its my
opinion that we never "enter" juridical entities into our system, we create
"out- of- band" associations between juridical and digital entities, that we
can change at any time with no reflection in the system."
I have found that it's near impossible to fully describe digital identity
systems without being able to explain that they provide digital
representations of whatever- you- want- to- call- the- entity- being- represented.
So from a practical perspective it really helps to have two different terms,
even if they use modifiers (such as Mike's "juridical entity" and "digital
entity").
The problem I find semantically with using modifiers on the same base term
is: a) if you leave the modifier off, the term becomes ambiguous, and b)
frequency of usage strongly favors single word terms.
So I agree with Paul that two different terms - ideally both single words -
works best. Currently that's "node" (for the digital representation) and
"entity" (for the real- world principal). But if we switch, I still think
we'll be better off with two separate terms for the digital representation
and the thing- being- represented.
=Drummond
_____
From: higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 8:50 PM
To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
Cc: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions';
higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [higgins- dev] With 7 people having voted so far...
Everything is an Entity, so no replacements needed
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
Inactive hide details for "Paul Trevithick" --- 02/24/2008 10:01:54
PM--- Anyone who votes for entity has the extra burden of sug"Paul
Trevithick" --- 02/24/2008 10:01:54 PM--- Anyone who votes for entity has the
extra burden of suggesting a second word to replace "real world"
From:
"Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"'Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions'"
<higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
<higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
02/24/2008 10:01 PM
Subject:
RE: [higgins- dev] With 7 people having voted so far...
_____
Anyone who votes for entity has the extra burden of suggesting a second word
to replace "real world" <http://wiki.eclipse.org/Entity> entities (like
people, objects, organizations, software programs, etc.) that are being
represented by a node- whatever.
_____
From: higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:43 PM
To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
Cc: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions;
higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [higgins- dev] With 7 people having voted so far...
Open to everyone that votes for "entity"
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
Inactive hide details for "Uppili Srinivasan" --- 02/24/2008 04:34:15 PM--- Is
this voting a privilege for only the contributors "Uppili Srinivasan"
--- 02/24/2008 04:34:15 PM--- Is this voting a privilege for only the
contributors or can interested commons vote? :- )
From:
"Uppili Srinivasan" <uppili.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions"
<higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
02/24/2008 04:34 PM
Subject:
Re: [higgins- dev] With 7 people having voted so far...
_____
Is this voting a privilege for only the contributors or can interested
commons vote? :- )
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Paul Trevithick
To: <mailto:higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project
developer discussions'
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: [higgins- dev] With 7 people having voted so far...
Sorry, should have been more clear about that. Yes, vote for more than one.
[Greg, if you find another computer/device with a different IP address, you
can vote again and add your missing input. Let me know if that's not good
enough]
_____
From: <mailto:higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [ <mailto:higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Byrd
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
Subject: Re: [higgins- dev] With 7 people having voted so far...
Hmm. Seven responders and 12 responses. I didn't know we could/should vote
for more than one.
...Greg
_____
_______________________________________________
higgins- dev mailing list
higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins- dev>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins- dev________________________
_______________________
higgins- dev mailing list
higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins- dev>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins- dev________________________
_______________________
higgins- dev mailing list
higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins- dev
