Re: SHACL name

Dean,

In the south of the US, in the last 200 or so years, ‘SHACL’ has other negative connotations. We should consider what the full power of the SHAPES work will be, beyond “Fifty Shades of Constraints” :-)

Ralph
rhodgson@topquadrant.com




> On May 28, 2015, at 10:27 PM, Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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/ <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
> 
>