W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:39:22 +0200 (CEST)
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804281831380.29453@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
> On 28 Apr 2008, at 17:02, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>> 
>> OK - but can you suggest some other names?
>
> Not really. I personally can live with the current  names...

So can I.

> I was just trying 
> to report the state of play as I understand it. Nameing these suckers is damn 
> hard, I'm finding.

Absolutely.

> EL++     OWL-Ont

If we want to change the name, it would have to be sth like this, I
guess. The problem with an alternative name for EL++ is that its
distinguishing feature is that it is more a real ontology language
than the other fragments. But then, it feels strange to emphasize that
property since, after all, what we are standardizing *is* ontology 
languages.

> DL Lite  OWL-Rel (for relational?)

I find that a little misleading. Speaking about relations is not
exactly one of DL Lite's strengths (unless the relations are unary).

> OWL-R  OWL-Rul

Made me laugh, but maybe it only sounds funny in German. :)

I would propose names here if I could come up with good suggestions,
but I can't. Since, as Ian says, the names are already in wide
circulation, sticking with the existing names may not be the worst
choice.

greetings,
 		Carsten

--
*      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden       *
*     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:40:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 April 2008 16:40:19 GMT