- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:18:04 -0400
- To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Harold, you made changes to the Naming Conventions page [1] which seemed
to me to combine editorial changes, changes to the conventions, and
arguments motivating those changes. I've refactored the page to try to
clean that up. I hope they all were true to the spirit of your edits.
Meanwhile, I hear you arguing that the grammatical considerations are
not appropriate in an international context -- that there's no reason
class names or property names should be nouns/noun-phrases. Is that
right? But the Java convention that class names should be nouns or noun
phrases is very well accepted, isn't it? [1] In fact, google's second
hit (after [1]) on "class naming conventions") also supports the use of
nouns for property names [2].
I think the counter-argument against the conventions I'm proposing is
that "ExistentiallyQuantifiedFormula" is too darn long, so "Exists" is
fine. But if that's the case, let's just have a convention that names
be short, and justify the shorter names on those grounds, because there
was no short noun-phrase name for this class.
-- Sandro
[1] http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc8.html
[2] http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/naming.htm#Nouns_Verbs
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 19:18:20 UTC