RE: Call for consensus on renaming "statusCodes" to "possibleStatus" and "StatusCodeDescription" to "Status" (ISSUE-27)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Hoppe [mailto:thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de]
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:42 AM
> To: public-hydra@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Call for consensus on renaming "statusCodes" to
> "possibleStatus" and "StatusCodeDescription" to "Status" (ISSUE-27)
> 
> Yea, potentialStatus is synonym to possibleStatus to me, as both express the
> existence of a status but also hint that they are not limited to the ones
> enumerated.
> So I'm also fine with that.
> 

I'm +1 on 'potentialStatus'. But shouldn't it be 'potentialStatuses'? It looks more awkward and clumsy, but isn't it more accurate? And doesn't it more explicitly communicate the fact we can have many potential statuses?

'possibleStatus' or 'possibleStatuses' has the potential to be interpreted as being the complete set of all possible statuses. 'potentialStatuses' does too of course, but just less so I think.

> On 07/25/2014 09:50 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like to get some more opinions about this naming decision here
> > before I mark the issue as resolved. We have two candidates
> "possibleStatus"
> > and "potentialStatus". Thomas said:
> >
> > On 22 Jul 2014 at 00:11, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> >> I vote for possibleStatus or just status as we could just describe in
> >> prose that the property conveys the meaning of a potential Status.
> > I personally would prefer potentialStatus as I think it is less
> > definitive (other statuses are possible as well). Thomas, why do you
> > prefer possibleStatus?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Markus Lanthaler
> > @markuslanthaler
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Saturday, 26 July 2014 11:40:40 UTC