Re: SHACL name

I've been accused by many of having my mind in the gutter, but honestly,
after a few months of reading emails about this, the sex shop connotation
never occurred to.  A quick informal poll of the people in my office
yielded the comment that such a complain says more about the complainer
than the name.

While I like DASH a lot, I think we might let a sleeping dog lie.





On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>