[Ex-plain] The Name of the Game

Mark Needleman - DRA mneedlem at dra.com
Mon Mar 25 20:43:29 CET 2002


Ray

why not go for a literary reference and have the R stand for Redux

mark


On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:

> Mike Taylor wrote:
>  
> > I hate to make a big deal of the single most trivial issue we have to
> > address here, 
> 
> I don't agree. I've been in many naming marathons,
> and you always feel guilty, as though you're
> wasting time over a trivial matter, but if you
> come up with a winner, it's worth the effort. 
> 
> 
> > Excuse me.  What I meant to say was: I do not like "Splain".
> Since Sebastian and I seem to be the only ones who
> like Splain, I'll give it up. (However I do think
> it would be a winner, but that's from a US
> perspective.)
> 
>  
> > Although I appreciate the merits of eXplainML and the related
> > suggestions (particularly google-ability, which is why I chose the
> > non-word "Zthes" for the thesaurus profile) I think it's misleading to
> > make a strong XML connection.  In the end, XML is just a convenient
> > syntax that we're using for representing our abstract records.  It had
> > nothing to do with the service _per se_.
> 
> Whether or not XML is relevant enough to reflect
> in the name depends on how you want to reflect the
> context of this effort. Classic explain is not
> xml, this explain is. In that context, this is
> Explain done in XML. On the other had I think Mike
> is right that it could be misleading to make a
> strong XML connection.  This explain is also
> "lite" compared to classic explain, and I think
> that's a more relevant connection to make.
> 
> But I think it's worth trying to get "Z39.50"
> reflected in the name, probably more important
> than XML.  
> 
> I've been thinking of a name like ZER.  "Z39.50
> Explain <r-something>"
> where the r could be "revisited" or
> "re-engineered".
> 
> The "re-engineered" part comes from some thinking
> I've been doing recently on how best to progress
> Z39.50 in general.  If you look at the proposal
> I've put up for a compspec-2:
> http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zig/meetings/oclc2002/compspec2.html,
> particularly the rationale (which is 90% of the
> proposal) it's really all about re-engineering
> Z39.50.  This effort could be seen as part of that
> re-engineering.
> 
> However, I like "revisited" too.
> 
> --Ray
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ex-plain mailing list
> Ex-plain at indexdata.dk
> http://www.indexdata.dk/mailman/listinfo/ex-plain
> 





More information about the Ex-plain mailing list