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

Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

From: Markus Krötzsch <mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:47:02 +0200
To: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, 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: <200804301647.08433.mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Not caring about any particular name or pronunciation, I still think name 
changes would really be in order. Main requirements are:

* unified naming: profile names should look somewhat similar in shape,
* avoid non-letter symbols ("+")
* avoid "Lite"

I would be happy with Bijan's one-letter version (E, D, R). At least these are 
easily recognised as smaller profiles.

For a two-letter version, I would prefer: EL, DB, LP.
(Some of these might be too close to "DL")

Three-letter alternatives were already given by Bijan.

I prefer the one-letter names. They are least likely to be confused with each 
other or other OWL versions, and they are uniform, easy to remember, and not 
taken in the literature.

-- Markus

P.S.: I generally oppose the use of "OWL Rules" and anything very similar. 
There are existing approaches (yes, including my own works, but also the 
Protege plugin presented at OWLED DC [Gasse/Sattler/Haarslev]) that allow 
much more rules/rule syntax in OWL 2. We should avoid the confusion. Also, 
future OWL/RIF efforts may have to say more about rules for/with OWL.


On Montag, 28. April 2008, Carsten Lutz wrote:
> 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
>     *



-- 
Markus Krötzsch
Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), 76128 Karlsruhe
phone +49 (0)721 608 7362          fax +49 (0)721 608 5998
mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de          www  http://korrekt.org

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 14:47:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 April 2008 14:47:46 GMT