- 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