There were a few requests to change the names of some of the bSDD concepts. I agree that the current naming is confusing, and we often need to explain it. In its defence, I will just say that some of the names are taken from the previous version of ISO12006-3. It’s a considerable change, so before taking action, let’s discuss it here on the forum. Easier to change it now and in one go, than when bSDD becomes even more popular.
We’re considering renaming:
“Classification” → “Class” (alternative: “Concept”)*
“Domain” → “Dictionary” (alternative: “Ontology”)
“Material” into “Class”(ification) of type “Material” (right now “Material” is a separate entity)
*consequence of that will be a change to all fields such as “ClassificationRelations” or “ClassificationProperties”. We would also need to rethink current ClassificationTypes, as having a Class of type “Domain” and “ReferenceDocument” doesn’t make much sense, but type “GroupOfProperties” does. Maybe we keep only two types: “Concept” (default) and “GroupOfProperites”?
There was also a suggestion from @VladimirAlexiev and Ontotext team, to change all attributes to singular and written in lowerCamelCase. For example: “CountriesOfUse” → “countryOfUse”. I don’t think this change is necessary and might even lead to more confusion, but would like to hear more opinions on this.
Another proposal from Ontotext was to drop the “namespace” from “namespaceUri”.
Let me know if you are against or in favour of the proposed changes. Do you have any other suggestions?
As usual, such a change would require that we create a new version of the API, and maintain the old one for a period of at least 6 months. It wouldn’t affect the existing content, as we would rename the fields in the database. For those who want to upload new content, that would require them to update their input data files or use the updated template.