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

Re: Naming conventions

From: Andrea Trasatti <andrea@trasatti.it>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:04:13 +0100
Message-Id: <1DF37D94-E8E3-440C-B3A9-2781351C2753@trasatti.it>
To: public-ddwg@w3.org

Once again, I suspect that having aliases might seem of help at first  
site, but once in the wild and with different companies and  
developers from different sides of the world with different  
backgrounds, might lead to confusion.

I would prefer to have a single capability name.

There is a real world example, J2ME Polish, they have a device DB and  
support aliases. They even added common typos or slight differences  
in the spelling. I think it's great from a pragmatic point of view,  
but it doesn't seem the best approach for a group that is trying to  
determine a standard.

- Andrea

Il giorno 14/mar/07, alle ore 16:29, Rhys Lewis ha scritto:

> 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
> Rhys
> -----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.
> ---Rotan.
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:49:04 UTC

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