- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:59:58 -0800
- To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Jindřich Mynarz <mynarzjindrich@gmail.com>
- CC: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I would stay *very* far away from the way that keywords are chosen in programming languages. The keywords in ANSI C (some unknown version) are *auto <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#auto>break <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#break>case <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#switch>char <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#int>const <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#const>continue <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#continue>default <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#switch>do <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#do>double <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#float>else <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#if>enum <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#enum>extern <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#extern>float <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#float>for <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#for>goto <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#goto>if <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#if>int <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#int>long <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#short>register <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#register>return <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#return>short <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#short>signed <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#short> sizeof <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#sizeof>static <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#static>struct <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#struct>switch <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#switch>typedef <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#typedef>union <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#union>unsigned <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#short>void <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#void>volatile <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#volatile>while <http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#while> * Does anyone imagine that double, or short, or for, or if is a good name for a single-namespace ontology setup? The other keyword are not much better, if at all. In a single-namespace setup like schema.org there is this incredible need to be precise in naming. Any accidental imprecisions end up forever polluting the namespace, adding a significant burden for producers. peter ** On 02/11/2014 09:00 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: > A general comment: > > When we articulate requirements on the naming of elements in schema.org > <http://schema.org>, let’s > > 1. not get too philosophical and > 2. look at how keywords have been chosen in other formalisms, namely > programming languages. > > Of course, it is more difficult to find catchy keywords for a broad > conceptual schema that for the set of instructions in a programming > language. But on the other hand I find the implicit requirement of an > “ideal” grounding of schema.org <http://schema.org> in various human > languages too far reaching. > > Python, Java, etc. and most programming languages except for machine code > have dealt pretty well with mostly English-based keywords, and have been > used successfully by large, diverse audiences in multi-national development > teams. > > For instance, “print” in many languages from BASIC to Python is incorrect, > when compared to the etymology of the word, see > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=print. > > So IMHO, let’s not get too religious about naming. > > Best > > Martin >
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 19:00:30 UTC