> The best way to "ease precise communication" though is to use a term as it turned out to be used/understood by most people -- not to insist of its initial intended meaning (which in IT could be off by several decades to its modern use).
How do we know we're up-to-date with the latest definition? And what if someone disagrees with what is the latest definition? How do we even know what "most" people think is the latest definition? Do you see how your suggestion is unrealistic?
But, your next argument is the strongest here, and I stand corrected. I like your computer example. So I'd say if we deprecate the thing that the word meant before (human computers, or REST as defined by one guy and never used) then it's OK to reuse it. I don't know the REST story and have no reason to doubt your version of it, so thanks for the argument!
How do we know we're up-to-date with the latest definition? And what if someone disagrees with what is the latest definition? How do we even know what "most" people think is the latest definition? Do you see how your suggestion is unrealistic?
But, your next argument is the strongest here, and I stand corrected. I like your computer example. So I'd say if we deprecate the thing that the word meant before (human computers, or REST as defined by one guy and never used) then it's OK to reuse it. I don't know the REST story and have no reason to doubt your version of it, so thanks for the argument!