[Accessforall] Format of Registry names (spaces, camelCase)
liddy at sunriseresearch.org
Thu Oct 18 00:19:08 EDT 2012
I think that the unique identifier of the object being named will
always be a URI so I cannot see that it matters very much what
convention people use - showing that there is duplication of a term
should be handled through the URI (IMHO) esp. as we want people to be
able to use different languages etc (well, I do, as an editor of
24751). I suggest that this is typical of the problems that will be
best handled if we use URIs not names as identifiers and, as we will
have to do in ISO, enter at least core names into a SKOS map.
But I also vote for camelCase! - it's easier to type than
underscore :-) In the Dublin Core world, we use camelcase.
On 17/10/2012, at 5:50 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> I think there is lots to learn - and this will be non-trivial.
> Also I think in the end it will be important to have looked before
> we decreed.
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Colin Clark <colinbdclark at gmail.com>
>> On 2012-10-16, at 8:48 AM, Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>>>> I think we do want to impose some minimal naming conventions to
>>>> make it
>>>> easier for programmers in a variety of languages to use these
>>>> local names
>>>> without extra effort. It doesn't seem inappropriately restrictive
>>>> simply ask contributors to the registry to avoid certain
>>>> characters (such
>>>> as spaces) when specifying their local names. Validation in the
>>>> UI can prompt the user, and if we find a desire for more
>>>> beyond that, we can come up with a style guide for contributors.
>>> OK. This then leads to the next question: should this naming
>>> convention be
>>> part of ISO 24751?
>> I'd suggest that for the time being we shouldn't suggest including
>> this naming convention as part of ISO 24751. Let's work it out, try
>> it in practice for a while, and then suggest it if we find it's a
>> successful approach. I know the ISO committee has its hands full
>> already with our first round of suggestions.
>> Colin Clark
>> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
>> Accessforall mailing list
>> Accessforall at fluidproject.org
> Accessforall mailing list
> Accessforall at fluidproject.org
More information about the Accessforall