My brief two cents: I think terminology + api changes need to be a big improvement to be worth breaking things at this point, and I don't think this proposal meets that bar. In fact I'm not sure any proposal could.
On the specifics: * Keyspace vs Database Actually the right concept from the rdb world is "schema." (Maybe it is a mysql-ism to call these "databases?") I deliberately avoided that term though, possibly mistakenly. * ColumnFamily vs Record collection -1. CF correctly implies "group of columns" to me without being so generic it could apply to anything. * Record vs Row I don't really care, I guess, but row never really seemed confusing to me. * Column vs Attribute Definitely -1 on this too. Both imply "a named value" but column is from the database world but attribute is from OO. The connotations are wrong. Here the baggage from a relational background is mostly correct. As Evan notes the difference is that ColumnFamilies are sparse, but that is a difference between CFs and Tables not between the different concepts of Columns per se. * SuperColumn vs Attribute Collection SuperColumn is probably the worst name here, but calling it a ColumnCollection would not be an improvement. (I can have a Collection<Column> in my own code, and do, but that is not the same thing at all.) So having thought it through I think I would have to say I think the current names, if not perfect, are underrated. Even if making the change were free, and it's obviously not, I would prefer the existing terminology. -Jonathan
