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

Re: Proposal to resolve Issue-108

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:01:14 +0100
Message-Id: <4162DCD0-C608-4C4C-A8D7-24906F19A686@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Jim Hendler has pointed out that there may be some resistance to  
renaming existing languages (i.e., Full) given that many books and  
papers have already been published using those names, and companies  
have tools that already claim to support them.

Ian


On 1 Aug 2008, at 05:53, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> I wasn't at the F2F, so this is only my understanding of the
>> abbreviations:
>>
>> DL ... Description Logic
>> EL ... This is the name of the DL on which the fragment is based
>> (there, E stands for a DL construct called qualified *E*xistential
>> Quantification)
>> QL ... Query Language, I guess, although I do not understand the
>> rationale behind this
>> RL ... Rule Language
>> XL ... eXtended Language ???
>
> The proposal is that they don't exactly stand for anything, but that
> the letter is chosen to be a somewhat suggestive mnemonic, and we
> acknowledge that's all it is.
>
> The mnemonic behind "Q" is indeed query, since that language is
> engineered (as I understand it -- which is not very much) to be the
> fragment of DL that can be implemented by rewriting SQL queries.
>
> The notion behind "X" is that the language is both extra-large and  
> kind
> of extreme in several ways.
>
> More conservative terms would be CL instead of QL and FL instead of  
> XL.
> They're more conservative because they're in the more common part  
> of the
> alphabet.  I'm not sure what the "C" would stand for; FL is obviously
> "Full".  And it keeps them all in the range C,D,E,F (and R).
>
>      -- Sandro
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 17:01:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 August 2008 17:01:51 GMT