I've not been working on my RDF toolkit for about a week, and though I've got plenty of things going on to make up an excuse for having dropped it, I think that a big part of the reason is that I've been unable to choose a name for it.
Here's my shortlist:
- Artipy
- Pyr
- PyRDF
- Redef
- rdftools
Without a name, there can be no module names, no URI for the toolkit, and no alpha-page. The name is very important—it's the first thing that people are going to be introduced to when they come across it, and it's the label which they'll use to refer to it. It has to be pretty good, and I'm getting Atom-esque jitters about the nomenclatural nuances.
At the moment, I'm quite a fan of PyRDF—but is it too generic? What happens if people want to port pieces of the toolkit over to other languages? I'm not sure that I really want "Py" in there, since it smacks of the name vs. address problem.
I was thinking about setting up a little HTTP GET voting system, where you the reader could just click on a link to let me know which one you'd prefer, and then I could simply grep my server logs to get a count... but I really want to hear rationale rather than a stack of votes. One of the most irritating things about naming Atom (which may well be called Nota if the current vote is anything to go by) is that voting seems to be a bandwagon process rather than anthing clearly thought out—people see votes from a famous weblogger, and they add their name just because.
I have a few requirements: it must have a low googlecount, be short, and sensible. The googlecount is for trackability; it's hard following comments and feedback. It's handy to have a short name from experience—locally, I'm just calling it "rdf", and that's been handy. It has to be sensible for obvious PR/marketing type reasons.
If you have suggestions, feel free to send them in, but I think I'm just venting here. Perhaps I'll try to expand on the shortlist, and then if nothing really stands out, I'll use PyRDF.