Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [higgins-dev] The case for "node" (RE: Draft ITU-T Reporton definition of "identity")
Our debate is not to determine the meaning of Entity. The ITU has defined it (in the document) as "Anything with a describable existence at some location within some timescale." This is already broader than the legal definition that you mentioned -- that's the point that I was trying to make.
The debate here is what Higgins should call the digital representation of an Entity. We used to call it a DigitalSubject, and recently switched to Node. The current discussion is whether to stay with Node, move to Entity (in which case the digital representation is called by the same word as the thing itself), or find another word. 

...Greg


Thor Wolpert wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <mailto:higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev



------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Back to the top