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

Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:12:53 -0400
Message-ID: <481621B5.7020206@oracle.com>
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>

Hi,

For OWL R, what about OWL Rules, or OWL SR (for simple rules), or OWL RP 
(rules profile)?

Zhe

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...I was just 
> trying to report the state of play as I understand it. Nameing these 
> suckers is damn hard, I'm finding.
>
> EL++     OWL-Ont
> DL Lite  OWL-Rel (for relational?)
> OWL-R  OWL-Rul
>
> These have the advantage of being somewhat consistent and 
> equi-repellent. The disadvantage is that they are very repellent :(
>
> I guess we could try single letters across the board:
>
> OWL E
> OWL D
> OWL R
>
> These all potentially scan:
>
>     OWLy
>     OWLed
>     OWLer
>
> But, that sucks too :(
>
> One could try modeling names on DLP:
>
> OWL EDL (for EL++ DL)
> OWL RDL (for relational DL)
> OWL DLP (for description logic programs)
>
> Or
>     EON (Existential ONtologies, conflicts with the EON workshop)
>     RON (Relational ONtolgoies, conflicts with people I know)
>     FON (Forwardchaingingrules/Full ONtologies, could be fun)
>
> Ok, I got *nothin*. Sorry. I can live with the current names, I guess.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 19:21:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 April 2008 19:21:22 GMT