| RE: [higgins-dev] With 7 people having voted so far... |
|
Having 2 terms will be even more confusing as folks will reference one at times and then the other
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 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
Anyone who votes for entity has the extra burden of suggesting a second word to replace “real world” entities (like people, objects, organizations, software programs, etc.) that are being represented by a node-whatever. 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"
Is this voting a privilege for only the contributors or can interested commons vote? :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trevithick To: '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] 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 _______________________________________________ |
