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

I mainly wanted to say that the only relevant dimension of naming elements in a Web ontology is how well it supports human users to chose the best element for a given piece of data. That is not necessarily the most "correct" one (a catchy layman's word may outperform the proper academic term), and it is always an approximation, so there is no absolute right or wrong. What we can learn from programming languages is that validators and feedback help manifest a shared understanding and consistent use of keywords, because if you use the wrong keyword, your program will not work as intended or fail to execute at all.

With Web vocabularies, the feedback loop is much worse - it is very difficult and slow to test whether your target audience (e.g. search engines) understand your data as you intended. 

Martin

On 12 Feb 2014, at 19:59, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 20:04:38 UTC