This isn't a new idea. It's mentioned in http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/beauty/synthesis.pdf , for instance.
Also, I believe if you read the (detailed) arguments for each side, you'll find it much harder to reduce them to disagreement over word meaning. Or at least that's what I remember from when I looked at them.
You want to read http://analysis.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/2/143 and http://analysis.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/3/171
Last two links are paywalled.
A friend referred me to another paper on the Sleeping Beauty problem. It comes down on the side of the halfers.
I didn't have the patience to finish it, because I think SB is a pointless argument about what "belief" means. If, instead of asking Sleeping Beauty about her "subjective probability", you asked her to place a bet, or take some action, everyone could agree what the best answer was. That it perplexes people is a sign that they're talking non-sense, using words without agreeing on their meanings.
But, we can make it more obvious what the argument is about by using a trick that works with the Monty Hall problem: Add more doors. By doors I mean days.
The Monty Hall Sleeping Beauty Problem is then:
The halfer position implies that she should still say 1/2 in this scenario.
Does stating it this way make it clearer what the argument is about?