- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 04:20:44 +0200
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Hi! The people I talked to found it quite fitting (+ funny considering the various logo possibilities ;)). But ofc, they were mostly non-native English speakers. simon --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys Am 2015-05-29 03:41, schrieb Holger Knublauch: > Sorry to raise a dead topic, but I am increasingly getting negative > feedback on the name SHACL from people outside of the WG. I know most > of us were all excited about the name and were happy to have this > difficult topic off the radar, but I am afraid it may come back. The > feedback that I am hearing is that people don't take a technology > serious that sounds like a sex toy, or that it sounds too dark. It's > probably also a bit negative to talk only about constraining things, > when it's really also a schema language to create things. I personally > would now prefer something like "Data Shapes Language" (DASH), also > because we then have prefix and technology abbreviation aligned > (dash:property etc). > > Did others hear similar feedback? Would this topic be worth reopening > or shall we await feedback on the FPWD? I am fully aware we have many > other topics to worry about right now, so please don't shoot the > messenger. > > Regards, > Holger
Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 02:21:15 UTC