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

Re: Proposal to resolve Issue-108

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:01:14 +0200
Cc: public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Message-Id: <6F3EB83B-F23C-4D7F-951E-57FB2EDBDB40@uva.nl>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

On 6 aug 2008, at 17:47, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> 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.

+1

-Rinke

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 16:01:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 August 2008 16:01:52 GMT