W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > March 2007

RE: Naming conventions

From: Rhys Lewis <Rhys.Lewis@volantis.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:29:55 +0000
To: "Rotan Hanrahan" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com> , "Andrea Trasatti" <andrea@trasatti.it> , "public-ddwg@w3.org" <public-ddwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070314152955210.00000003668@v-rhys3>

Hello everyone, 

I just wanted to confirm that Rotan is correct when he says that it is possible to have additional associated names for entries in the ontology. Indeed the reason I introduced this capability was precisely to support the notion of different names for the same item in different contexts, as exemplified in Rotan's list.

Naturally, I think it will make life easier if the various names for a particular characterisic are related to one another in a simple way.

Best wishes

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
Sent: 14 March 2007 13:47
To: Andrea Trasatti; public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Naming conventions

There are multiple name-related issues here, and I thank all the contributors for pointing these out. I think the names break down as follows:
- Names, as used in the Ontology.
- Names, as used in the Core Vocabulary.
- Names, as used in the IDL.
- Names, as translated to programming languages to access the Core Vocab via an IDL-derived interface.
It is only the last case that I think will have the most impact for the success of the DDR. If I understand the suggestion made by Rhys, it may be possible to have additional associated names and a rationale for creating those names, so that software developers will observe a consistent convention in naming. If this is the case, and the burden on the DD group editor(s) can be managed so that this is not an onerous task, I would support this approach.
I don't think the developer community will really care about the names we use in the Ontology, or even the Vocabulary, but when it affects the source code they have to write (and later read, to maintain) they will care. I hope this discussion here shows that we care too.
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:32:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:13 UTC