W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: suggested shortnames

From: Biplav Srivastava <sbiplav@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:48:17 +0530
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Cc: public-gld-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF25F0F9DE.1D38318D-ON652579BA.0021BE2E-652579BA.0022AF2E@in.ibm.com>
Hi,

My two cents ...

In the interest of consistency, I will suggest that we 
adopt a common prefix which clarifies to all users (including govt) that 
it was the contribution from this WG. We can use the prefix of gld-. . 
This will help people track provenance of name spaces.
use common acronyms like pub (for publishing) and ld (for linked data)

So, people becomes: gld-vocab-people or gld-people
and publishing-linked-data become: gld-pub-ld or gld-pub
Regards,
--Biplav
 
 



From:
Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
To:
Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc:
public-gld-wg@w3.org
Date:
03/07/2012 11:32 AM
Subject:
Re: suggested shortnames




> For "org" and "people", I'm inclined to go with vocab-org and
> vocab-people.   I think http://www.w3.org/TR/people suggests a 
> somewhat
> larger scope than this document has.


+1 for vocab-people etc. -  looks sensible and scalable to me.

> The one aspect of
> this that's not a coin flip, I think, is whether to put the word
> "government" and the letter "g" in the title.   I lean slightly 
> against
> it, because I think it would scare away some people who would find the
> document useful, but that's just my relatively uninformed opinion.

We're chartered for GLD. Our prime 'customers' are government agency. 
Let's be honest and stick with what/who we are. Don't get me wrong - I 
love the idea that the stuff we write is reusable and in a sense 
applicable to other domains, but I think we're sending out the wrong 
message. I fear that in an attempt to maximise potential reuse down 
the line we fail to show respect and dedication towards our main 
audience: governments.
>
> If I had to pick right now, I'd go with "publishing-linked-data", 
> which
> is a pretty long "short" name, but it's clear, at least.


Hmmm ... unsure about this.

Cheers,
                 Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 6 Mar 2012, at 23:26, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> One aspect of publication by W3C is the assignment of a permanent 
> URL to
> the document and its future versions.   For example:
>
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax
>
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris
>
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data
>
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/void
>
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub
>
> The selection of that last part, the "shortname", is technically up to
> the W3C staff/management, but ideally it's something the WG is happy
> with, too.
>
> In our last telecon I agreed to suggest names for our documents.
>
> For some of them, the current names on the editor's draft filenames 
> are
> fine, I think: data-cube, data-cube-ucr, dcat, dcat-ucr.
>
> For "org" and "people", I'm inclined to go with vocab-org and
> vocab-people.   I think http://www.w3.org/TR/people suggests a 
> somewhat
> larger scope than this document has.
>
> For bp, I don't have any great ideas.   ldpb, linked-data-pb,
> ld-best-practices, gld-best-practices, ld-pb, ld-pub, ... these would
> all be acceptable, I think, but none are great.     The one aspect of
> this that's not a coin flip, I think, is whether to put the word
> "government" and the letter "g" in the title.   I lean slightly 
> against
> it, because I think it would scare away some people who would find the
> document useful, but that's just my relatively uninformed opinion.
>
> If I had to pick right now, I'd go with "publishing-linked-data", 
> which
> is a pretty long "short" name, but it's clear, at least.
>
> So, those are my suggestions; I'm happy to discuss them more.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 06:19:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:03:31 UTC