RE: A rose by any other name...

I agree ....

 

We don't say "Xerox copy" because it's a good name, it works.

 

We don't say "Google it" because it's a good name, it works.

 

A name change will not change perception.

 

Very respectfully,

Gary

 

 

________________________________

From: public-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of John Boyer
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 13:14
To: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer
Cc: Mark Birbeck; new Forms WG; Charles F Wiecha
Subject: Re: A rose by any other name...

 


Hi Sebastian (and Kenneth and others), 

This sounds interesting because it preserves the "XForms inside" and the
market awareness we have managed to raise, yet allows us to project
broader applicability. 

Combining with a twist on a suggestion from Rafael, maybe something like


XForms 1.1: Rich XML Applications, or perhaps Dynamic XML Applications 

This leads to RXML applications developers (or DXML).   

Not sure if that has enough coolness factor, but gut feel is that it
piques the interest more than "backplane", which is a good technical
name but seems to rate about the same as "form" on the good name scale. 

<tongue-in-cheek>Maybe we should name it after some kind of delightful
beverage</tongue-in-cheek> 

Well, maybe only half a tongue because this is essentially Joern's point
with codenames like Longhorn and Tiger or even, frankly, AJAX.  Being an
AJAX programmer sounds heroic; it's downside is that it needs a hero to
keep it together.  We could use a good dose of Greek mythology.
Achilles? Unbeatable... except for that heel.  Phoenix? Powerful rising
raptor image, but comes out of a crash and burn scenario.  Drats.
Walden.  Hmm. Calm and idyllic, yet somewhat connected to civil
disobedience.  Maybe a bit Cambridge though.  A precious stone name?
The red one is already taken, the name of the green one has too many
syllables and the associated city is just too far from Kansas (and hence
New Jersey).  Sapphire?   Got the right number of syllables, looks blue,
seems pure.  Could work.  Other ideas? 

Our claim to fame seems to be that, years before there was a formal Web
2.0, we've essentially been working on the generalization of the Web 2.0
application model.  People are loving Web 2.0 because it provides
specific business functions like blogs and wikis that allow people to
collaborate on content without needing a pile of Java programmers
kicking around.  The declarative and data-focused aspects of XForms
allow us to let the people build up collaboration functions without
needing a pile of Java programmer in the middle.   

How do we capture this in a name?  I agree with Mark (and Shakespeare)
that a rose is still a rose no matter what you call it, but Shakespeare
was talking about a rose in the hand, whereas we need something that
helps people find the XForms rose in the first place.  This is hard
given the usual standards precedent for dull technical names. We need
something with flair.  And as Mark Twaine once said, the difference
between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference
between lightning and the lightning bug. 

Gee, this seems like the most fun we've had since the announcement by
Yahoo! 
  
Cheers, 
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Staff Member
Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer> 
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw> 





Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net> 

01/25/2008 03:30 AM 

To

Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com> 

cc

Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com>, John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, new
Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>, public-forms-request@w3.org 

Subject

Re: A rose by any other name...

 

 

 




Maybe my previous was too long and unclear, I proposed
an additional (sub)name for the next version number:

"XForms 1.1: XYZ"

Keep XForms - add something to it thats a bit broader.

Names do matter, after all.

- Sebastian

Mark Birbeck schrieb:
> Hello all,
> 
> With respect to everyone on this, the 'naming' discussion always seems
> to come up in a context where people wish some 'x' was more
> successful, and assume that it will be if they change the name.
> 
> Yet some of the most well known items have names that by this logic
> should simply not work; renting a DVD? Downloaded some MP3s? Does your
> computer have a 486? (Ok, that one is dated...but non-technical people
> really used to talk about having a 486.) And don't even think about
> phones; you've surely heard people talking about getting a 6500 or a
> 5610.
> 
> So let's not kid ourselves that the name really means anything. (Which
> is how I've always interpreted Shakespeare's point about roses -- that
> what we call something is irrelevant, it's its nature that matters.)
> 
> But perhaps the biggest argument against a name change is the legacy
> one. Over the last few years we've built up tutorials, samples, blog
> posts, implementations, tools, and so on, based on the name 'XForms'.
> And we all know that recently Yahoo! announced that XForms was the
> inspiration for the latest release of its mobile platform.
> 
> So, just as interest is growing, do we now want to change the name?
> 
> There are lots of things that need to be done to speed up adoption,
> but I think the name  of the technology is the least of our problems.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 25/01/2008, Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Well...this broader vision for XForms is certainly why I joined the
WG, and
>> have been interested in the "Backplane" ideas for some time.  Indeed
the
>> phrase Backplane is intended to imply the broader applicability of
>> "components" such as submission, data model, validation, MVC binding
and
>> events to broader web applications -- in a variety of host languages
and
>> platforms just as XForms applies to those cases as well.
>>
>> In my own work, apart from the WG, I've often been asked why I keep
so
>> focused on "forms" when the web is so much broader.  I spend a lot of
>> effort explaining how the above ideas have incubated in forms but are
in
>> fact part of the deeper web stack.  I'm getting pretty tired of this
and
>> frankly it's starting to be a handicap so I'd welcome some help in a
name
>> change here :}
>>
>> Thanks, Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>          A rose by any other name...
>>
>>
>>          John Boyer
>>                    to:
>>                      Forms WG (new)
>>
01/24/08 07:36 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>          Sent by:
>>                public-forms-request@w3.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In some ways it's too bad that the need for dynamic, interactive XML
>> applications arose first in the web forms space.
>>
>> One reason is that we called it XForms, and it has always been a
challenge
>> to get people excited about forms.  They have too many pre-conceived
>> notions about the uses and limitations of forms technology based on
their
>> prior experiences with older technologies for delivering forms.
Whether
>> purely instantiated with paper, or whether it's a print and fill or
even a
>> fill and print system, or an old html form, the dynamism of what we
do
>> today seems to me qualitatively different than what is done with
those
>> other technologies.
>>
>> It's a little like comparing a bicycle and a car on the basis that
both
>> involve the use of wheels to get you from point A to point B.  Bit of
a
>> stretch, don't you think?
>>
>> Similarly, calling our dynamic interactive XML applications "XForms"
>> because forms collect data is also a bit of a stretch.  The word
"form"
>> just doesn't evoke the full measure of business process enablement of
which
>> so-called "XForms" are capable.  Whether you ascribe to the more
ephemeral
>> view in which an XForm serves as the intelligent front-end face of
the
>> business process, or whether you subscribe to the philosophy of the
>> intelligent document as the fundamental unit of information
interchange in
>> a business process, the simple fact remains that calling our
information
>> processing assets "forms" is about as informative as trying to sell
>> "plants" when you mean to sell roses.  The rose does smell just as
sweet no
>> matter what you call it, but if you call it a plant, you won't
attract as
>> many customers.
>>
>> So, isn't it time for the name XForms (plant) to be changed to
something
>> more reflective of what XForms is (a rose)?
>>
>> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
>> Senior Technical Staff Member
>> Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
>> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
>> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
>> IBM Victoria Software Lab
>> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
>>
>> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer> 
>> Blog RSS feed:
>> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>