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

Re: Redefining the RDF abbreviation for more accessibility

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:36:06 -0400
Message-ID: <501058B6.6050007@gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
I vote for Reality Disruption Field.  :-)

I vote against anything that includes data, big or little.

peter

On 07/25/2012 04:28 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 20:36:34 UTC

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