Re: [higgins-dev] The case for "node" (RE: Draft ITU-T Reporton definiti

["Thor Wolpert" <thor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Why is it (Entity) too restrictive?  Is it worth trying to change the current definition ... it might be easier, or wiser to leave the current definition alone and add in something new for your more expansive view.

On 3/1/08, Greg Byrd <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

This definition is too narrow, as entities should also include devices, pets, etc.

Of the terms I've heard so far, I think "persona" is the closest to what we
mean.  I don't like it, though, because it's too tied to personhood.  (And it
has three syllables -- right, Drummond?)  And it has an awkward plural.  But it
does have the notion of representing a facet of the entity.


...Greg


Thor Wolpert wrote:
> Entity seems to be well defined in legal contexts, it is either a person
> or a legally registered incorporated business.  A business that is a
> sole proprietorship or partnership is indistinguishable from the
> entities (human beings) that comprise it.  That is also the case for
> taxation, and the taxation laws are fairly similar in the western world
> (all are guilty until proven innocent type laws).
>
> Would it not be easier to just adopt this definition that an entity is
> either a sentient being or an incorporated business?
>
> Thor hW
>
>

_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev