[higgins-dev] RE: Paul: "Represented Entity" ==> "Resource"?

["Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So then we'd have:

Concept          Higgins   ITU       GangLexicon       W3C
-------          -------   -----     -----------       ---
The thing        Resource  Entity    Entity            Resource
Representation   Entity    Identity  Digital Identity  Representation


Do I have this right? 

-Paul


Drummond wrote:
> 
> Paul, in reading this message over today -- especially the definition of
> Correlation -- I was struck that if we're going to go in the "entity"
> direction, maybe using a fully distinct word for the "represented entity"
> would be good.
> 
> Obvious choice: "Resource". "Entity" would mean the Higgins representation
> of a resource.
> 
> Things I like about this:
> 
> 1) It aligns with W3C terminology where a resource is always the thing-
> being-represented and a URI resolves to the representation.
> 
> 2) It aligns with W3C architecture because Higgins would be maintaining a
> special type of resource representations -- entities.
> 
> 3) Semantically it avoids confusion between the representation and the
> thing-being-represented - each has its own distinct word.
> 
> 4) The Correlation definition would read more cleanly: "A Correlation
> between two Entities means that they represent the same Resource."
> 
> Whatchathink?
> 
> Also, are you planning on making the decision official on this week's
> Higgins telecon?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:04 PM
> To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
> Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Poll to schedule a call to talk about
> Nodereplacment--take two
> 
> So I got a chance to talk with Tony about this today when we were on a
> panel
> together at the IDtrust Symposium (after a lot of fun ribbing back and
> forth
> -- some of it live on the panel ;-)
> 
> He lost no opportunity to point out how many times the word "entity" was
> used in the presentations (which happened to be about reputation). And how
> few times "node" was used (well, actually, none ;-)
> 
> Afterwards, I again explained my concern that if we adopt "entity" for
> what
> is currently "node", we need to -- in certain very specific cases -- be
> able
> to clearly distinguish between "entity" and the thing-being-represented --
> the debate we were having this weekend.
> 
> But the new idea was that if "entity" by itself ALWAYS means (in the
> context
> of anything to do with Higgins) the representation, then the only time we
> would need to add a modifier would be those few cases where we need to
> explicitly refer to the thing-being-represented.
> 
> In IM with Paul tonight, we agreed there's an obvious choice for that
> term:
> "represented entity".
> 
> Can folks live with "Entity" (replacement for "Node", formerly "Digital
> Subject") and "Represented Entity" (replacement for previous meaning of
> "Entity")?
> 
> If so, here would now be the definition of "Correlation" (translated
> directly from http://wiki.eclipse.org/I-Node_Correlation), which
> originally
> kicked off this whole discussion at the last F2F:
> 
>     * An Entity Correlation is a kind of Attribute of a source Entity.
>     * Each value of a Entity Correlation identifies a target Entity.
>     * Each source-target Entity pair expresses that both Entities are
> representations of the same Represented Entity.
> 
> =Drummond
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Trevithick
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:24 PM
> > To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
> > Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Poll to schedule a call to talk aboutNode
> > replacment--take tw
> >
> > Yeah, I was worried about the fatigue factor too. If enough folks don't
> > sign
> > up to the latest doodle poll, then we'll just go ahead and change Node
> to
> > Entity as per the vote.
> >
> > Tony wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul it could be that people are getting a little tired  of the topic
> > and
> > > not sure how many times we have to discuss this to get the magic
> answer
> > >
> > > What are you looking for in this call. I have seen nothing that would
> > > change my choice
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > > Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Paul Trevithick" [paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 03/04/2008 02:44 PM
> > > To: "'Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions'"
> > > <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: [higgins-dev] Poll to schedule a call to talk about Node
> > > replacment    --take two
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I just looked at the "old" poll and only Drummond, Mary, Tom and I
> have
> > > responded. This doesn't constitute a quorum for this topic IMO, so
> > > consider
> > > the above poll closed.
> > >
> > > Below is a new, replacement poll that includes slots for wed, thurs,
> > > Friday.
> > > Hopefully this time we'll get more participants.
> > >
> > > New Poll: http://doodle.ch/ekbez89udes8384r <-- vote here
> > >
> > > -Paul
> > >
> > > Old Poll: http://doodle.ch/participation.html?pollId=7sfxpr6hvu29wnys
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > higgins-dev mailing list
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > higgins-dev mailing list
> > 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