[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > BTW, what about just "TRAIN" or "CLASSIFY" instead of "ASSERT"? I get > what you mean by ASSERT, but that verb in general has implications of > code-quality, not user interaction -- it's a very generic term.
How about DECLARE? TRAIN and CLASSIFY imply a learning database and a corpus, respectively. I'm also thinking about "Class" (see Michael's post) vs. some other name. We might want to be able to set other properties or flags in addition to classes. > In particular I'd prefer to use a word that indicates that a user is > asserting something about the *class* of a *message*, not just that > they're asserting something in general. Hmmm... I see what you mean, however, it's potentially not just the class. To jump off on a bit of a tangent, I wonder how we would support a "unsubscribe" function (like a lot of people are asking of AOL and other ISPs that have a "report as spam" button which some dolts use as an unsubscribe). Maybe ASSERT (or whatever) class=unwanted, who=sender. > [...] like moving from POP2 to POP3, the name of the protocol changes, > kind of big. I don't think any verbs have ever been removed from > HTTP. [...] I'm fine with being conservative, hence my desire to get this right now, but it's a stretch to compare us to POP2 to POP3. A better comparison would be some other intra-product protocol. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
