- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:15:56 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2012-07-25 16:36-0400] > I vote for Reality Disruption Field. :-) > > I vote against anything that includes data, big or little. since it seems to give us all reason to debate things we essentially agree upon: Reality Debate Facilitator There were similar discussions about what to do with the acronym for Simple Object Access Protocol. The ended up saying that "SOAP" was just a name, not an acronym for anything > 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. > >> > >> > > > -- -ericP
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2012 14:16:27 UTC