[cap-talk] Process object -> "Subject" - the saga continues

[Jed at Webstart]

At 01:35 PM 4/7/2005, David Hopwood wrote:
>Jed at Webstart wrote:
>>I admit that's a pretty broad range of people, but so far
>>I haven't heard anything that suggests that "subject" won't
>>work and convey the added value that I'm looking for
>>(the doer vs the doee) when I want to distinguish a
>>active executing object from a passive non executing
>>object (e.g. like a file or a directory or a port or ...).
>
>In some systems, files, directories or ports are not passive
>objects. In systems where they are, what's wrong with
>"passive object"?

I don't have any problem with a notion like "passive object",
but it isn't really the "passive object" that I have a need for.
The default "object" behavior from common speech is already
to be passive, so there isn't any confusion likely there.  Rather
my need is for an "active object".  What I've been arguing for is
the "subject" term for such active objects (the subject of this
message thread).

Are you suggesting by analogy that I (we) should use the
term "active object" when we want to refer to a doer, that
is a "subject" in the common language?  That seems a bit
convoluted and somewhat unnecessarily "academic" for
general use - to me, but if others like that idea I think I could
go with that.  I might have to try writing a whole paper using
such qualified language to see how it works in practice to
really know.

--Jed http://www.webstart.com/jed/