Information Bearing Entity / Information Bearing Artifact mislabeled?

[swartik]

If I recall correctly, classes Information Bearing Entity and Information Bearing Artifact date from when the bearer of property included class generically dependent continuant in its range. Now that the range of bearer of is specifically dependent continuant, would it be better to change the labels of classes cco:ont00000798 and cco:ont00000253 to Information Carrying Artifact and Information Carrying Entity, respectively?

[neilotte]

@mark-jensen Interested in your thoughts here.

[CarterBeauBenson]

I spoke with @cameronmore about this. We agree in principle, but Cameron pointed out that Information Carrying Entity has the acronym "ICE". I think this would confuse people a ton more than it already does.

[mark-jensen]

I am not sure if changing the rdfs labels will make things better or worse on the confusion front. Once labels get embedded in a community, change can be hard and often not worth it.

There is parallel work being done right now to update labels and definitions for some of the ICE and IBA classes. See #564 Suggest we wait on the outcome of that before deciding anything here.

Provisionally, I'd say keep the rdfs labels as is, add alternate labels and a comment or scope note about why 'bearer' is used in the labels rather than 'carrier'.

[swartik]

I endorse @mark-jensen's provisional approach (add a comment explaining that Information Bearers carry something, but don't necessarily bear anything).