- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:26:18 +0100
- To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi, >> Afterthought about naming: >> >> broaderTransitive => broaderAncestor >> narrowerTransitive => narrowerDescendant >> This assumes readers understand the intended difference (a la XPath) >> between parent/ancestor and child/descendant. Well, reading them I think there is a bit of redundancy inside them: I would expect "ancestor" to be broader... >> >> Of course, these names need also to be evaluated in terms of the >> overall discussion about the broader/narrower names (I have to think >> every time I use them; for me the current meaning in counterintuitive). >> >> Guus >> >> PS I also suggest this naming discussion should not hold up >> publication of new WD. >> > > > I propose that we simply pick some names and use these in the WD with > a @@TODO to the effect that the names are provisional (but the pattern > is not). +1 Perhaps we could raise an issue on this (just because it is very difficult to find the mails on naming in the thousands of ISSUE-44 mails. Also because I feel this problem might be more general. A colleague of mine involved in the programming of a SKOS service observed that there was a mixture of different conventions used for SKOS properties: consider "inScheme" "broader" "hasTopConcept"... Cheers, Antoine
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 10:27:09 UTC