Re: Resource gloss [was:Re: Resource discovery directory [was: XMLCatalog proposal]]

[Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>]

> >Besides the other ideas I posted, I thought up "Namespace Gloss" or
> >"Resource Gloss".
> >
> >I don't like "* Discovery Directory" since the "discovery" seems
> >redundant given the "directory".  Looks like just a way to toss in a
> >buzzword now that DISCO is back in vogue, with new cousin UDDI.
> >
> >Other ideas: "Resource Charter", "Resource Summary", "Resource Outlay",
> >"Namespace Resource Directory" (has the requisite three words).
>
> Since this thing is directing one to a bunch of potentially
> interesting and related resources, "resource directory" seems
> the most natural to me (I can take or leave "discovery").

I don't know.  I think that the "directory" term has been thoroughly
hijacked by the UDDIs of the world.  I think a lot of people would
associate it with the machine-readable aspect.  If you look closely at
my suggestions besides "Namespace Resource Directory", I am emphasizing
the aspect of elucidation for humans ("gloss" is an explanation or
interpretation, "charter" is a contract with elements of explanation,
"summary" needs no explanation").

It doesn't have to be one of my suggestions, but I do think we should
emphasize the human-readable aspect in the name to differentiate it from
all the strictly machine-oriented specs emerging.

Any one else handy with a mot juste?

> I hesitate to include "namespace" in the title of this thing
> because, as a resource discovery mechanism, it's useful regardless
> how you get to it, and you needn't get to it just from a namespace
> name.  In fact, the mechanism we're talking about needn't have
> anything to do with a namespace--see all the previously referenced
> discussion about packaging and manifests and such.  Even though
> many of us are in agreement that such a directory is a very useful
> thing to have at the end of a namespace URI, it seems a shame to
> develop such a useful thing and then restrict it (even in name) to
> only that one function.

Yes, this makes sense.  Thanks.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python