|
First, I did not author the RDF spec, and have
absolutely no say in what name it would choose if they accepted the proposal I
posted last night.
Some observations.
1. The RDF fork is broader than RSS. It can do more
than Web syndication.
2. It is RDF. It's RDF-ness is the first thing I
want to know about. This is the stuff Rael calls "syntactic sugar."
3. Is it a subset of RDF or can you push any kind
of RDF content through this format? (I honestly don't know.) If there are
limits, things you can do with it that you can't do with RDF or vice versa,
these are things a name can help you explain.
4. What is the vision for this format? What kinds
of problems will it be solving two years from now?
5. Who is the target user for this format? What
other formats do they use?
6. Position it relative to 0.91, what would you
like people to think of it?
There's more to choosing a name than "liking" it --
the name communicates what it is, or at least has a chance to do that. Many
product names (formats are just like products in this way) fail to inspire or
inform or make any kind of positive statement.
Dave
|