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
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
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 Baker <[log in to unmask]>