W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Redefining the RDF abbreviation for more accessibility

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:28:03 +0100
Message-Id: <8EBEC1F1-24F0-4176-8E26-7237C41F48CC@danbri.org>
Cc: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>




On 25 Jul 2012, at 20:44, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> To help the general public better understand RDF, how about renaming the
> long form to something like one of the following:
> 
>  RDF: Reusable Data Framework
>  RDF: Reusable Data Format
> 
> (Or maybe someone else will come up with a better one.)
> 
> If this is done, I suggest *also* retaining the existing "Resource
> Description Framework" name in the title to avoid confusion, such as:
> 
>  RDF: Reusable Data Framework (a/k/a Resource Description Framework)

My initial gut reaction was 'oh god, no....', just w.r.t. Introducing more confusion, ambiguity, and obsoleting ever book written on the topic.

But then, ... somehow it is tempting. I was similarly tempted to recycle 'URL' a while back. I like 're-usable' (or 're-cycled'); and 'resource' always was an awkward word. Even if we don't do this officially this could come in useful as an informal slogan for what RDF is all about. 

See also 'reality distortion field...'

Dan


> With RDF 1.1, this might be a good opportunity for such a renaming. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 20:28:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:30 UTC