[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".
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.
Virus Safe Computing Initiative
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
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