W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [TF-LIB] COALESCE is an unhelpful choice of name

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:26:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4AFD96C0.2010204@talis.com>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 13/11/2009 17:13, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Kendall Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm not wedded to COALESCE and I recognize it's an obtuse word that's
>>> confusing to non-SQL-heads and probably even more confusing to
>>> non-native-English speakers.
>>> ...But I don't like any of these proposed choices either :)
>> How about GATHER (which is a pretty good synonym of "coalesce")?
> It sounds a bit like something you do with berries and twigs :-), but I
> definitely prefer it to the other proposals, and probably indifferent to
> it vs. COALESCE (pro is it's a much nicer word, con is we're inventing
> something new).
> Lee

GATHER is pretty good and better than any I thought of.

Googling for synonyms of COALESCE:

	adhere, amalgamate, associate, bracket, cleave, cling, cohere, combine, 
commingle, commix, conjoin, connect, consolidate, fuse, hook up with, 
incorporate, integrate, join, join up with, link, merge, mingle, mix, 
relate, stick, tie in with, unite, wed

AMALGAMATE is a bit long but gets to the point as well.

has lots.
   Including: assimilate

(and a bit odd :  emulsify, homogenize)

   blend, merge, meld

MELD? On the principle that it's a word that isn't likely to be used 
else where (unlike say 'merge').

Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 17:26:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC