[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Resource gloss [was:Re: Resource discovery directory [was: XMLCatalog proposal]]
- From: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>
- To: Paul Grosso <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:36:40 -0700 (MST)
> >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
email@example.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