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

Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 09:42:12 +0200
Message-ID: <481AC5D4.8060000@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>, mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de, 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>


Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> Barry Smith offers
> 
> OWL Classes
> OWL Instances
> OLW Rules
> 
> Of what I've seen, I like the single letter names. But really, I think 
> we need a marketer to help us figure this out, as my sense is that we're 
> all so close to the history that we won't be able to appreciate what 
> it's going to be like for the majority who use owl, who don't know it. 
> I'm spreading the word....
> 

Although I agree with the marketer's issue, I think the names by Barry 
are really bad, I am sorry:-( As an outsider my immediate reaction would 
be that if I use 'OWL Instances' that means I could not use OWL 
Classes... Let alone the fact that if I have a sentence saying 'OWL 
Classes bla bla', how do I know whether I refer to OWL Classes in terms 
of the concept of owl:Class or whether I refer to a profile?

Ivan

> -Alan
> 
> 
> 
> On May 1, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Carsten Lutz wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>
>>> Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>>>> 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")
>>>
>>> EL and DB sounds actually good to me (sorry Markus, I prefer the 
>>> two-letter alternatives:-)
>>>
>>> For the third, LB is not bad; another alternative may be 'RL' (for 
>>> rules) although it is not necessarily easy to pronounce...
>>
>> Out of the current one-, two-, and three-letter proposals, I very much
>> favour the two-letter ones. "EL" and "DB" are very natural and under-
>> standable for EL++ and DL-Lite, and to me "RL" is also fine for OWL-R.
>> In principle, of course, we do not need the sumber of letters for each
>> profile and could use "EL", "DB", and "R". I slightly prefer "RL",
>> though.
>>
>> greetings,
>>         Carsten
>>
>>>
>>> I.
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>     *
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU 
>> Dresden       *
>> *     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   
>> mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf



Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 07:42:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 May 2008 07:42:59 GMT