Next time my wife accuses me of over-thinking things, I'm going to subject her to this thread :)
>>> "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 03/06/08 11:21 PM >>> The table Paul sent yesterday made me realize there's a different way to think about our usage of the word "entity" in the Higgins data model (one that aligns with what I think Tony and Mike have been saying).
The realization was that a pure Higgins Entity -- a single raw node in the Higgins Global Graph -- is not actually a Resource because, until you add at least one Attribute, it is not even identifiable (which is a requirement of an Identity -- ITU definition -- or a Resource -- IETF/W3C RFC 3986 definition).
In other words, if the label "Entity" simply refers to a graph node representing the pure concept of Entity, then it does not become any form of "representation" of the Entity until you begin adding Attributes that turn an Entity into an Identity. (That explains why Entity and Node seem so interchangeable.)
If we take this approach, it eliminates the conflict with either the ITU or IDGang. The table looks like this:
Concept Higgins ITU GangLexicon W3C ------- ------- ----- ----------- --- Thing Entity Entity Entity Resource Representation Identity Identity Digital Identity Representation
=Drummond
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Trevithick [mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:55 AM > To: Drummond Reed > Cc: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions' > Subject: RE: Paul: "Represented Entity" ==> "Resource"? > > 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
_______________________________________________ higgins-dev mailing list higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
|