[tei-council] Re: The Naming of Classes

[Christian Wittern]

Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> writes:

> To facilitate comparison, I have left the original version of edw87
> unchanged, though it does form the basis of my revision. The rewrite
> is available from http://www.tei-c.org/Drafts/edw87a.xml
>
> Comments welcomed-- especially if you think the underlying principles
> listed at the start of the rewrite are seriously flawed or
> incomprehensible. The details of the names themselves are less serious
> -- but if you don't like them, proposals for a better alternative add
> great weight to your objection.
>

I don't have really serious objections anymore, although two points
strike me as unfortunate:  

For model classes that are populated from modules (like the
*dictionary* stuff), this can not anymore be guessed from the name.
Since in practice the knowledge were something comes from is needed to
write customizations, it would be useful to see this reflected
somewhat in the naming.

*Part and *Like are not really clearly distinguishable. And *Like
really sounds a bit silly.  In what way is chunk pLike? If siblings
are the criterium, pSiblings would maybe make more sense?

All the best,

Christian


-- 
 Christian Wittern 
 Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
 47 Higashiogura-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8265, JAPAN