W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > January 2015

FW: Straw poll: Do we want to capitalize datatypes such as hydra:rfc6570Template? (ISSUE-17)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 23:38:14 +0100
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0fad01d0304a$c962e880$5c28b980$@gmx.net>
Forwarding Gregg's response since he sent it only to me.


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:13 PM
To: Markus Lanthaler
Subject: Re: Straw poll: Do we want to capitalize datatypes such as hydra:rfc6570Template? (ISSUE-17)

On Jan 8, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to get a feeling of where the group stands regarding the issue of the capitalization of datatypes such as our RFC 6570 type. We have three options, each with pros and cons:
>
> - hydra:rfc6570Template
>  - Pros: somewhat consistent with the widely used XSD datatypes
>  - Cons: even XSD isn't consistent with this, Schema.org uses uppercase
>
> - hydra:Rfc6570Template
>  - Pros: Easier to read than all-uppercase, matches Schema.org, perhaps
>    more intuitive (classes are types as well and uppercased), consistent with
>    IriTemplate & ApiDocumentation
>  - Cons: in this specific case, the acronym's capitalization might be surprising

+1

Gregg

> - hydra:RFC6570Template
>  - Pros: acronym are normally all-uppercase (in prose, coding styles differ)
>  - Cons: Inconsistent with IriTemplate, ApiDocumentation
>
> Please add reply to this mail and add your name to the following list to express your preference:
>
> - hydra:rfc6570Template
>  - ...
>
> - hydra:Rfc6570Template
>  - Markus
>  - ...
>
> - hydra:RFC6570Template
>  - ...
>
>
> Thanks,
> Markus
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2015 22:38:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 14 January 2015 22:38:56 UTC