- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:36:06 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
I vote for Reality Disruption Field. :-) I vote against anything that includes data, big or little. peter On 07/25/2012 04:28 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > On 25 Jul 2012, at 20:44, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > >> To help the general public better understand RDF, how about renaming the >> long form to something like one of the following: >> >> RDF: Reusable Data Framework >> RDF: Reusable Data Format >> >> (Or maybe someone else will come up with a better one.) >> >> If this is done, I suggest *also* retaining the existing "Resource >> Description Framework" name in the title to avoid confusion, such as: >> >> RDF: Reusable Data Framework (a/k/a Resource Description Framework) > My initial gut reaction was 'oh god, no....', just w.r.t. Introducing more confusion, ambiguity, and obsoleting ever book written on the topic. > > But then, ... somehow it is tempting. I was similarly tempted to recycle 'URL' a while back. I like 're-usable' (or 're-cycled'); and 'resource' always was an awkward word. Even if we don't do this officially this could come in useful as an informal slogan for what RDF is all about. > > See also 'reality distortion field...' > > Dan > > >> With RDF 1.1, this might be a good opportunity for such a renaming. >> >> >> -- >> David Booth, Ph.D. >> http://dbooth.org/ >> >> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily >> reflect those of his employer. >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 20:36:34 UTC