- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:08:13 +0100
- To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jason Johnson (BING)" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 11 September 2014 19:12, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not just leave itemListElement the way it is. I know it's a clumsy name > but doesn't changing it just about any ItemList out there no longer is > correct? Yeah, we do try to avoid ontological vanity. If it's a choice between us thinking "oh dear, that could've been better named" and 1000s of sites having already adopted something even if awkwardly designed, we lean towards being a bit ugly and living with the deployed reality. Unless there's a serious usability/intelligibility benefit, or it's part of a larger consistency cleanup. In this case it's not sounding like we've a strong enough case for renaming - so I think you're right. Jason/Vicki, any objections to restoring itemListElement? Dan > 2014-09-11 20:02 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>: >> >> On 11 September 2014 18:56, Jason Johnson (BING) <jasjoh@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> > On second thought, re: 4. "Change ‘itemListElement’ to >> > ‘itemInList’", this could imply 'the list in which the item exists', which >> > ideally we avoid. I still want to eliminate usage of 'element' in the term >> > but I'm open to suggestions on alternatives to 'itemInList'. >> >> "listedItem"? anyone got a better suggestion? >> >> BTW since last msg, I've updated >> >> https://github.com/danbri/schemaorg/commit/96183f621e2d28ea11ed23c54e7d7993062b7e1d >> with examples hopefully now matching the drafted vocab, and >> http://sdo-itemlist.appspot.com/ItemList to match. >> >> Dan >> >
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:08:45 UTC