 |
 |
Hi Karen and Tom I agree with Tom that all those names and acronyms, LDOM etc are overloaded and potentially misleading. Moreover LDOM is already used in software industry, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDOM. From a non-native speaker of English viewpoint, "Pattern" would seem less bizarre than "Shape". So, if you ask me (you don't) I would push *Data Pattern Language*, DPL rolls on the tongue, as Karen says, if pronounced "*DaPaL*", which is not unused, but seems in our context not too overloaded. Beyond the name, grounding a language which will be mostly use for validation in closed worlds, upon RDFS which relies on the open world assumption, might be at risk of muddling those waters a bit more. But this is a first impression. I have not followed that stuff actively and close enough ... 2015-01-23 19:51 GMT+01:00 Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:12:38AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote: > > "Shapes" is a new term in this context, though, which has both > > positive and negative aspects: positive because it carries less > > baggage, negative because it will be unfamiliar and will have to be > > learned. > > Yes - agreed. IMO the lack of baggage is good. The language will > will have be learned, whatever it is called. > > > (Peter Patel-Schneider is dead set against anything that uses the > > term "resource" because of potential conflicts with how "resource" > > is defined in RDF.) > > I'm with Peter on that. > > > The group has talked quite a bit about what to call the "target" of > > validation -- some favor using "class" because they anticipate in > > their environments that every graph they address will be > > distinguished as a particular class. Although I can see their point, > > I'm not sure that the use of classes for open data will be as > > extensive or reliable as it is in the enterprise systems that most > > working group members work on. If we anticipate using > > "un-constrained" RDA properties, then we do not have class > > information to rely on to distinguish groups of triples for > > validation. > > +1 to your position on this. I strongly feel that this new language > should not depend on classes or in any way force the use of classes > (i.e., of specific subclasses of Resource). The example of > unconstrained RDA properties sounds good. > > Tom > > -- > Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]> > -- *Bernard Vatant* Vocabularies & Data Engineering Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 Skype : bernard.vatant http://google.com/+BernardVatant -------------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca* 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris www.mondeca.com Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews> ----------------------------------------------------------