Re: property/class ambiguity in languages with no letter case

On 2/11/14 12:00 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
> A general comment:
>
> When we articulate requirements on the naming of elements in 
> schema.org <http://schema.org>, let’s
>
> 1. not get too philosophical and
> 2. look at how keywords have been chosen in other formalisms, namely 
> programming languages.
>
> Of course, it is more difficult to find catchy keywords for a broad 
> conceptual schema that for the set of instructions in a programming 
> language. But on the other hand I find the implicit requirement of an 
> “ideal” grounding of schema.org <http://schema.org> in various human 
> languages too far reaching.
>
> Python, Java, etc. and most programming languages except for machine 
> code have dealt pretty well with mostly English-based keywords, and 
> have been used successfully by large, diverse audiences in 
> multi-national development teams.
>
> For instance, “print” in many languages from BASIC to Python is 
> incorrect, when compared to the etymology of the word, see 
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=print.
>
> So IMHO, let’s not get too religious about naming.

+1

>
> Best
>
> Martin
>
> PS: Some people have thought about the issue from the perspective of 
> mapping Chinese database element names, see 
> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1141673.
>

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen