[rfc] Simplify names for key patterns and use Frictionless prefix for them

[rufuspollock]

This is just an idea and i'm not sure about it so thoughts are welcome:

• Data Package => [Frictionless] Dataset (or [Frictionless] Package)
• Data Resource => [Frictionless] Resource
• Table Schema => [Frictionless] Schema

Why?

• Get down to one word consistently (and drop redundant "Data")
• Use Frictionless consistently as a way to distinguish and brand the patterns

/cc @pwalsh

[cpina]

My 2 cents: I like "Table Schema" to know that this is the schema of a table... and in case that some day there were other schemas (I don't know, "Document schema" or something else).

For the other too I'm happy either way, maybe removing "Data" as suggested helps to read it (fewer redundant words, etc.).

[pwalsh]

Data Package => [Frictionless] Dataset (or [Frictionless] Package)
Data Resource => [Frictionless] Resource
Table Schema => [Frictionless] Schema

Adding Frictionless at the front is fine, for branding purposes. But, I definitely would not get rid of "Data" or "Table" - the names are perfectly clear at present.

[rufuspollock]

@pwalsh adding Frictionless at front does make them long and if you had Dataset rather than Package you would not need Data. I agree for Resource it might be needed though i have wondered if File would be better.

hear you both on keeping Table

[cpina]

Thinking aloud: to me File is a type of Resource... but there could be other type of resources besides files. E.g. if we had support for a object storage alike technically it would be an Object.

If we renamed it to File it would be limited to files only... no objects or other resources.

But File is clearer for newcomers I think (more explicit)

[lwinfree]

• I think Frictionless Package is fine (although I don't mind data package)
• I think Carles has a good point about File vs Resource, but I have seen some users being confused about the term Resource. A fix here could be as simple as making sure we describe this term more fully in our docs
• Agree that keeping Table is important in the schema name

@roll do you have thoughts here too?

[roll]

In the software, we e.g. have Package, Resource, Schema so in the documentation it can be prefixed by any of Frictionless or Data/Table. Honestly, I don't know what's better branding vs using more general concepts. At the same time, I don't see a problem if e.g. it's Frictionless Schema or Frictionless Package - we will get used to it very soon if it's used consistently.

Just a few examples - there is a Pandas Dataframe not just a data frame, a Postgres table not just a table, a Jupiter Notebook not just a notebook.

In the case of Frictionless Package, will it mean that Frictionless Package is an implementation of the more general concept of Data Package?

[rufuspollock]

Chatting with @pwalsh sense that Dataset is clearer than Package. Everything else can stay as is though perhaps we can start dropping Data in front of resource by default.

So, what I'm inclining towards recommending is:

Data Package  =>  Dataset
Data Resource => [Data] Resource
Table Schema  =>  Table Schema

[rufuspollock]

AGREED:

Data Package  => [Frictionless] Dataset
Data Resource => [Frictionless] Resource
Table Schema  => [Frictionless] Table Schema