W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > July 2014

RE: Call for consensus on renaming "statusCodes" to "possibleStatus" and "StatusCodeDescription" to "Status" (ISSUE-27)

From: McBennett, Pat <McBennettP@DNB.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:14:38 -0500
To: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52EE3F4A5E7F194A963FE14B2DDBDBFE2CC2FBCE22@DNBEXCH01.dnbint.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Hoppe [mailto:thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de]
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:54 PM
> To: McBennett, Pat; public-hydra@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Call for consensus on renaming "statusCodes" to
> "possibleStatus" and "StatusCodeDescription" to "Status" (ISSUE-27)
> 
> Hi Pat,
> 
>  > But shouldn't it be 'potentialStatuses'?
> 
> No, please see this discussion:
> 
> https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/25
> 

Aha - yep, makes perfect sense (now)! Thanks Thomas (and Ruben).

> On 07/26/2014 07:40 AM, McBennett, Pat wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Thomas Hoppe [mailto:thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de]
> >> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:42 AM
> >> To: public-hydra@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Call for consensus on renaming "statusCodes" to
> >> "possibleStatus" and "StatusCodeDescription" to "Status" (ISSUE-27)
> >>
> >> Yea, potentialStatus is synonym to possibleStatus to me, as both
> >> express the existence of a status but also hint that they are not
> >> limited to the ones enumerated.
> >> So I'm also fine with that.
> >>
> > I'm +1 on 'potentialStatus'. But shouldn't it be 'potentialStatuses'? It looks
> more awkward and clumsy, but isn't it more accurate? And doesn't it more
> explicitly communicate the fact we can have many potential statuses?
> >
> > 'possibleStatus' or 'possibleStatuses' has the potential to be interpreted as
> being the complete set of all possible statuses. 'potentialStatuses' does too
> of course, but just less so I think.
> >
> >> On 07/25/2014 09:50 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to get some more opinions about this naming decision
> >>> here before I mark the issue as resolved. We have two candidates
> >> "possibleStatus"
> >>> and "potentialStatus". Thomas said:
> >>>
> >>> On 22 Jul 2014 at 00:11, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> >>>> I vote for possibleStatus or just status as we could just describe
> >>>> in prose that the property conveys the meaning of a potential Status.
> >>> I personally would prefer potentialStatus as I think it is less
> >>> definitive (other statuses are possible as well). Thomas, why do you
> >>> prefer possibleStatus?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Markus Lanthaler
> >>> @markuslanthaler
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2014 13:15:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC