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

Re: Proposal to resolve Issue-108

From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:03:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4899CB5D.8080602@oracle.com>
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
CC: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

+1

Zhe

Rinke Hoekstra wrote:
>
> 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 16:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 August 2008 16:07:20 GMT