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

Karp, Alan H alan.karp at hp.com
Fri Apr 8 12:05:05 EDT 2005

David Hopwood wrote:
> Jed at Webstart wrote:
> > 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.
> It's actually quite well established (with the meaning of an object
> associated with a thread) -- more so than "subject".
> <http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22active+object%22&num=30>
Don't forget that we want to use the same terminology for oral
presentations and casual discussions.  It's harder to define unfamiliar
terms in those settings than in a published paper.  However, "active
object" should be OK.

Alan Karp
Principal Scientist
Virus Safe Computing Initiative
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
(650) 857-3967, fax (650) 857-7029
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Karp, Alan H.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 433 bytes
Desc: Karp, Alan H.vcf
Url : http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/attachments/20050408/bcf33db0/KarpAlanH.vcf

More information about the cap-talk mailing list