JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  January 2015

DC-ARCHITECTURE January 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: "Data shape" or "data pattern"?

From:

Simon J D Cox <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 26 Jan 2015 02:53:34 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

How about reversing it - "Linked Data Pattern Language" (LD-PL), pronounced "lid-pull". 



-----Original Message-----

Date:    Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:05:15 +1000

From:    Holger Knublauch <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: "Data shape" or "data pattern"?

	

On 1/25/15, 7:55 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:

> That is perhaps why 'Linked Data', and not 'RDF' (or 'Semantic Web'), 

> figures so strongly among the alternative names for the language 

> listed at [1]?



Yes, RDF may scare off some people who have looked at RDF in the past, do not see enough evidence of the "Semantic Web" etc. We need to keep in mind that RDF has accumulated a lot of baggage (with open world semantics, OWL etc) that may or may not be helpful to broaden the user community.



> If we were to lean towards 'pattern' over 'shape', and specifically 

> towards Bernard's proposal for 'Data Pattern Language', and if, on the 

> other hand, 'LD' appeals to the JSON-LD folks, how about: Data Pattern 

> Language for Linked Data (DPL-LD) This says very clearly what the 

> language is about, and the '-LD' part nicely echoes 'JSON-LD'.



I very much like the idea of "-LD" because I believe that the JSON community might be one of the largest potential communities, and this technology can serve as JSON Schema plus global identifiers plus an explicit typing system (the last two things are lacking in traditional JSON).



> Or, since 'Data' is used twice, maybe just: Pattern Language for 

> Linked Data (PL-LD) ...which sounds refreshingly straightforward and 

> non-threatening, jargon-wise. Of the two I slightly prefer 'DPL-LD', 

> despite the redundancy of 'Data', if only because the acronym rolls 

> better off the tongue.



I have added your suggestions to our current wiki page:



     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Technology_Name



I think the direction is good, but it might be better to have a vowel in the name somewhere, so that it sounds better.



Holger



------------------------------



Date:    Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:31:00 +1000

From:    Holger Knublauch <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: "Data shape" or "data pattern"?



For those favoring a name ending with -LD, maybe there is inspiration for a cool name here:



     http://www.morewords.com/ends-with/ld/



Holger





On 1/25/2015 11:05, Holger Knublauch wrote:

>

>> Or, since 'Data' is used twice, maybe just: Pattern Language for 

>> Linked Data (PL-LD) ...which sounds refreshingly straightforward and 

>> non-threatening, jargon-wise. Of the two I slightly prefer 'DPL-LD', 

>> despite the redundancy of 'Data', if only because the acronym rolls 

>> better off the tongue.

>

> I have added your suggestions to our current wiki page:

>

>     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Technology_Name

>

> I think the direction is good, but it might be better to have a vowel 

> in the name somewhere, so that it sounds better.

>

> Holger

>



------------------------------



Date:    Sun, 25 Jan 2015 07:19:21 -0800

From:    Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: "Data shape" or "data pattern"?



On 1/24/15 5:05 PM, 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.



Well, we could come up with PaLLiD, but the connotations are not positive. (Hmmm. Getting close to Pellet, no?)



How about PAL-LD? with the "LD" pronounced like JSON-LD.



We could "owl"-it can come up with an acronym that isn't entirely faithful to the words, and just call it PAL.

--

Karen Coyle

[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net

m: 1-510-435-8234

skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600



------------------------------



Date:    Sun, 25 Jan 2015 16:39:15 +0100

From:    Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: "Data shape" or "data pattern"?



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



--

Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>



------------------------------



Date:    Sun, 25 Jan 2015 08:09:12 -0800

From:    Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: "Data shape" or "data pattern"?



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



------------------------------



Date:    Sun, 25 Jan 2015 16:22:04 +0000

From:    "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: "Data shape" or "data pattern"?



The closed world situation here seems similar to the RDBMS mapping case. The acronyms used in their specs aren't catchy, but that seems OK



http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/

http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/





> On Jan 25, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 

> 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



------------------------------



Date:    Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:32:23 +1000

From:    Holger Knublauch <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: "Data shape" or "data pattern"?



The reasons why I like the term Object in the name is because



     Object = Data + Behavior



The data aspect was already covered by JSON, but LDOM is adding 

executable semantics, esp if the group agrees to include the rule 

aspect. There is also the aspect of encapsulation, inheritance etc in 

LDOM. From this point of view, Object is a more general term than Data, 

and thus Data Object is a bit redundant. However, it is useful to have 

both in the name, if only as a strong signal to the JSON and general OO 

crowd.



But Karen may be right, that the term Object does not survive the 

discussions in the group. I'll not give up yet though ;)



Holger







On 1/26/15, 2:09 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:

> 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

>>

>



------------------------------



End of DC-ARCHITECTURE Digest - 24 Jan 2015 to 25 Jan 2015 (#2015-16)

*********************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager