At the time, there where lots of voices saying that, while you are
perfectly correct (and I'd prefer to have them as humanly readable as
possible), the realities of computer-based parsing mean that a
trivial token format costs less pain.
How about an official show of hands?
Rick
On 1 Nov 2007, at 5:32 pm, Ed Shaya wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Well, I vote to put back the underscores and the capitalization
> where appropriate. There is no need to go out of one's way and
> make all IDs cryptic just to make a point about the concept of
> tokens. In ontology these become the element names of instances
> and it is really handy to be able to readily discern what kind of
> instance it is by looking, rather than going to some lookup table.
> We need some prescience here, not to be confused with pre_science.
>
> Ed
>
> Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2007, at 6:54 pm, Ed Shaya wrote:
>>
>>> What happened to the underscores between all of the compound words?
>>> Ed
>>
>> A while back, we communally decided that the tokens should be as
>> compact and simple as possible, i.e. no caps, no diacritical
>> marking, no spaces, no underscores, not only to make them
>> syntactically simple but to emphasize that they are only tokens.
>> The text file still has the underscores, but now only for
>> historical reasons (i.e. the original SV proposal).
>>
>> If everyone would rather see the underscores back again, no problem.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>
Received on 2007-11-01Z18:09:10