Re: property/class ambiguity in languages with no letter case

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