- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:06:47 +0100
- To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
- Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, "Jason Johnson (BING)" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 11 September 2014 20:39, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: >> >> 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? > > > +1 to restoring itemListElement to preserve current usage. I've updated github + test build accordingly. --Dan > - Vicki > > > Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com >
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 20:07:15 UTC