Technology Name

From RDF Data Shapes Working Group
Jump to: navigation, search

The goal of this page is to support the process of finding a suitable name for the technology produced by this WG. The votes should range from +3 (strong support) via 0 (neutral) to -3 (totally inacceptable).

Decision Criteria

  • Meaningful and representative for what it does
  • "Catchy" - should sound reasonably good
  • International - should not have negative associations (rude words etc) in any major human language
  • Short abbreviation (for prefixes etc)
  • Uniqueness to avoid clashes (for high Google ranking, Twitter hashtag etc, but especially not already used for similar technologies, copyright issues)

Building Blocks

Some suggested components of the name and why they are useful:

Data

Graph

Linked Data

Resource

Object

Comment (HK): I believe the OO scene (Java, JSON etc) has been a widely neglected target audience of RDF technology in the past. With its closed-world semantics and stronger attachment of properties to classes I believe we have a good chance of creating a web-friendly schema language for object-oriented systems.

Language

Comment (HK): The term Language was used in OWL. But what we are creating is more a Vocabulary or a Model.

Model

Comment (HK): Or "Meta-model"

Patterns

Comment (HK): Pattern was suggested as an alternative to "Shape"

RDF

Comment (SteveS): After all, it is the name of the WG and the underlying data model we are applying constraints to

Schema

Comment (HK): I think this is closest to what we are delivering.

Specification

Shapes

Comment (HK): The term Shapes seems to popular in this WG, and is used in pre-existing standards such as Resource Shapes and ShEx. For continuity, it would make sense to keep that name. However, I am not sure this term is widely understood outside of our little community.

Comment (HK): Any abbreviation ending with "S" has the extra luxury that we can more easily switch between Schema, Specification and Shapes in the future.

Vocabulary

Proposals

DGS (Data Graph Shapes)

Votes: AR +1, HK +2

  • Comment (HK): I very much like the term Graph here - it is less overloaded than Linked Data and nicely describes what this technology does. There may be other variations of existing proposals using Graph, but DGS doesn't seem to have too many conflicts on Google so it may even work with three letters.

DGSL (Data Graph Shape Language)

Votes: AR +1, HK +2

DOPL-LD (Data Object Pattern Language for Linked Data)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1501&L=dc-architecture&D=0&P=49281

Votes:

DPL (Data Pattern Language)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1501&L=dc-architecture&D=0&P=29961

Votes: HK +1, SSt +0.5

DPL-LD (Data Pattern Language for Linked Data)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=dc-architecture;7065eda7.1501

Votes:

DSL (Data Shape Language)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1501&L=dc-architecture&D=0&P=27785

Votes: HK +1, SteveS -1, SSt +0.5, AR +1

  • Comment (SteveS): -1 for the DSL overlap
  • Comment (HK): Abbreviation is unfortunately overloaded with "Domain Specific Languages"
  • Comment (SSt): Apart from the DSL overlap it's a suitable name though..

GSL (Graph Schema Language)

Votes: HK +3

LDOM (Linked Data Object Model)

Votes: HK +2, SSt -1, pfps -3

  • Comment (HK): I believe it is useful to have "Linked Data" in the name and the technology is basically an Object Model for Linked Data. However there is an overlap with "DOM" which may confuse some people.
  • Comment (SSt): I generally prefer Shape over Model.
  • Comment (pfps): The WG is not producing a new object model.
  • Comment (pfps): The WG should not be limited to linked data.
  • Comment (SSt): Peter is right, WG should not be limited to linked data.

LDOS (Linked Data Object Schema)

Votes: HK +2, SSt -1, pfps -3, SteveS -1

  • Comment (HK): The term "Schema" is already taken by RDF Schema, but it really describes best what it does.
  • Comment (pfps): The working group is not producing a new schema language.
  • Comment (pfps): The WG should not be limited to linked data.
  • Comment (SSt): Peter is right, WG should not be limited to linked data.

LDOS (Linked Data Object Shapes)

Votes: HK +1, SSt -1, pfps -3

  • Comment (pfps): The WG should not be limited to linked data.
  • Comment (SSt): Peter is right, WG should not be limited to linked data.

LD-PL (Linked Data Pattern Language)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=dc-architecture;603ef7ca.1501

LDS (Linked Data Shapes)

Votes: HK 0, SSt -1, pfps -3, SteveS +2, AR +1

  • Comment (SteveS): Would prefer to pronounce this LiDS or call it LiDS.
  • Comment (pfps): The WG should not be limited to linked data.
  • Comment (HK): The abbreviation is not unique enough to me, and reminds me of a party drug from the seventies.
  • Comment (SSt): Peter is right, WG should not be limited to linked data.

LD-Shapes (Linked Data Shapes)

LDP WG has produced LD-Platform (LDP), LDP-Paging, LD-Patch. LD-Shapes is fairly clear and aligned then.

Votes: Steves +3, HK 0

LDSL (Linked Data Shapes Language)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1501&L=dc-architecture&D=0&P=27785

Votes: HK 0, AR +1

LIDS (Linked Data Schema)

Votes: HK +2, SteveS -1

  • Comment (SteveS): I'm not sure why we couldn't use LiDS for Linked Data Shapes, I think in the Semantic Web world the use of schema might be confusing. I would like to use schema if it wasn't for RDF Schema.
  • Comment (HK): I don't think we need to be shy about reusing the term Schema only because of RDF Schema. And the constraints actually put a lid on the data, don't they?

LIDS (Linked Data Shapes)

Votes: HK +2

LOSh (Linked Object Shapes)

Votes: HK 0, SSt 0, pfps -3, SteveS -1

  • Comment (SteveS): doesn't sound good but left wondering if different than Linked Data
  • Comment (SSt): I guess there is no requirement to have "Linked Data" explicitly represented/stated in the final name.. ;)
  • Comment (pfps): A bit better than linked data, but still unacceptable.

PAL (Pattern Language)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1501&L=dc-architecture&D=0&P=48734

PAL-LD (Pattern Language for Linked Data)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1501&L=dc-architecture&D=0&P=48734

PL-LD (Pattern Language for Linked Data)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=dc-architecture;7065eda7.1501

Votes: HK +1

  • Comment (HK): Doesn't roll easily off the tongue, so maybe a vowel would help...

RDF-DS (RDF Data Shapes)

From: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1501&L=dc-architecture&D=0&P=27785

Votes: HK 0, DK +0.5, SteveS 0

  • Comment (SteveS): An alternative to this is RDS but sounds way too close to RDF, perhaps RDF-Shapes as an alternative.
  • Comment (HK): Having RDF in the name may sound too limiting - I expect this language to be useful for JSON folks for example.
  • Comment (DK): I would prefer RDS but looks like a common abbreviation (e.g. Relational Database Service)

RSL (RDF Shapes Language) or RS (RDF Shapes)

Votes: DK+1, SSt +1, AR +1, HK 0

  • Comment (HK): IMHO, "RDF" scares too many people away. RSL is already used a lot (in Australia at least).

RCL (RDF Constraints Language)

Votes: DK+1, SSt +1, HK -1

  • Comment (HK): The language is more than "constraints" in my opinion. More than OCL, rather UML + OCL.

Use a Name Instead of an Acronym

RDF already has Turtle. How about another animal?

  • Gecko - it's a reptile like turtle, but already used for a web browser rendering engine
  • Boa - a reptile well known for its ability to apply constraints