search

samvera-deprecated / rdf-vocab

Shared RDF Vocabularies (rdf-vocab <= v0.7.0)
https://github.com/ruby-rdf/rdf-vocab
Apache License 2.0
4 stars 2 forks source link

Naming conventions? #9

Closed mjgiarlo closed 9 years ago

mjgiarlo commented 10 years ago

ruby-rdf's vocab-loader generates classes with uppercase names

acoburn commented 10 years ago

True, but those classes (FOAF, SKOS, GEO, VCARD, etc) tend to be both short and/or already well-established acronyms. What if the LOC resource types are included? Using either RESOURCETYPES or RESOURCE_TYPES as the classname doesn't seem very ruby-like. In this case, it would seem more natural to write RDF::ResourceTypes.Dat

mjgiarlo commented 10 years ago

I haven't thought this through yet, but at least for LC vocabs, it might kinda cool to see them grouped together, e.g.

RDF::LibraryOfCongress::ResourcesTypes.Dat
# or
RDF::Loc::ResourcesTypes.Dat
# or
RDF::LC::ResourcesTypes.Dat
# etc.

or some such. We could repurpose that convention for other "groups" o' vocabs, too. For vocabs that are stand-alone, it might be nice to keep it simple, like

RDF::LEXVO
# or
RDF::Lexvo

And I dig aligning with Ruby style conventions.

dchandekstark commented 10 years ago

I agree with @mjgiarlo and @acoburn. Namespaces and ruby conventions are good. Note that I created RDF::Preservation::EventType in the initial commit. This should be moved to something like RDF::LC::Preservation::EventType or RDF::LC::PreservationEventType if we group LC vocabs (Preservation seems like it should be its own submodule b/c LC has a slew of Preservation vocabs?). FWIW I like RDF::LC or RDF::Loc over RDF::LibraryofCongress.

dchandekstark commented 9 years ago

At this point, I would call the trend on the class-naming issue leaning this way:

dchandekstark commented 9 years ago

vocab-loader no longer behaves this way. See also #18, #19, and #21. Closing this issue and suggest dealing with naming questions on pull requests for specific vocabs.