Tom, the problem I see here is the potential conflict with OWL's
terminology, where "DataProperty" and "ObjectProperty" are clearly
distinct. Thus "data object" is a muddle. In addition, as Holger states,
he comes from the OO world, where object has yet another meaning.
In the W3C group we've gone around on terms, as I'm sure you can
imagine, and "object" is one of those terms that an extra amount of
ambiguity. Although Holger initiated his proposal as LDOM, I'd be
surprised if the "O" survives a discussion in that group.
kc
On 1/25/15 7:39 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:05:15AM +1000, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> I think the direction is good, but it might be better to have a
>> vowel in the name somewhere, so that it sounds better.
>
> I hesitate to put this forward, but I find the notion of a 'Data
> Object', on its own, less objectionable than 'Linked Data Object', which
> is ambiguous. (Does it mean "(Linked Data) Object" or "Linked (Data
> Object)"?) After all, might any data be seen as an object, at any rate
> by programmers?
>
> Hence a new proposal:
>
> Data Object Pattern Language for Linked Data or
> Data-Object Pattern Language for Linked Data
>
> This is longer than 'Pattern Language for Linked Data', and it uses
> 'Data' twice. However, that is perhaps the price one has to pay for
> adding 'object'. I do not immediately see how referring to 'data' as
> 'data object' would necessarily confuse matters conceptually.
> 'Data-object' could be hyphenated, reinforcing the use of 'Data-Object'
> as an adjective modifying Pattern Language. Either way, the acronym
> would be:
>
> DOPL-LD
>
> While not a word, DOPL is at least pronounceable. 'Dopple' (or 'dopple
> elDEE') is pleasant to the ear, with echoes of 'dapple', 'dabble',
> 'double', and 'google', not to mention 'JSON-LD'.
>
> The acronym seems unencumbered with negative or confusing associations.
> The top hits in Google have to do with the Division of Occupational and
> Professional Licensing of the Utah Department of Commerce.
>
> I do not see any ambiguity in the sequence of words, which parse as
> "(Data Object) (Pattern Language)" -- or does anyone read it as "((Data
> Object) Pattern) Language"??
>
> I still prefer the shorter and straightforward 'Pattern Language for
> Linked Data' but do not immediately see how the use of 'object' in
> DOPL-LD would actually confuse or mislead.
>
> Tom
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|