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: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:47:37 +0100
Message-Id: <AFF4D023-DA77-4274-A5E3-E2A2202A62AB@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
To: public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I can see the point, and I would have no objection to using the 2- 
letter solution for all the languages *except* OWL Full (which would  
stay as OWL Full) -- OWL DL is already 2-letter compliant.

Ian


On 6 Aug 2008, at 15:22, Jim Hendler wrote:

> I don't think the issue is resistance, I think the issue is change  
> -- currently Google finds 59000 hits for the phrase "OWL Full"  - I  
> suspect a lot of those won't be changed, so both Full and FL would  
> be out there to cause confusion -- or if you want something more  
> specific -  Dean Allemang and I have a book which refers to OWL DL  
> and OWL Full -- we'll eventually do a second edition (we hope) to  
> include the OWL 2 stuff, but till then, the book's not about to be  
> republished (not is the van Harmelen book, or any of the 5-6 other  
> Sem Web books out there) -- so you would add tremendous confusion  
> to change "full" to "FL" just so that there's a resonance in names  
> -- I definitely think this is one of those "backwards  
> compatibility" issues your charter mandates be considered -- I   
> understand why it would be nice to have two-letter names for  
> everything, but I don't think it overcomes the barrier -- naming  
> new profiles consistently is great, but changing old ones is  
> confusing and incurs real cost in both OWL adoption (more confusion  
> = less use) and in real dollars - remember that change has economic  
> consequences for real people in the real world.
>  -JH
> p.s. Note that if the group decided to go with 4 letter names, so  
> Full would stay the same but DL would become, say, "DLog" then I  
> would have the same complaint - this isn't a Full vs. DL issue,  
> it's a "be very conservative on change" issue
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Michael Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 18:01 +0100, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> OWL FL might be a two letter name for Full that causes less  
>> resistance.
>> -- 
>> Mike Smith
>>
>> Clark & Parsia
>>
>>
>
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> would it?." - Albert Einstein
>
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 15:48:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 August 2008 15:48:18 GMT