Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

A vote for the 1 letter names:

On May 20, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Melanie Courtot wrote:
>  like the proposal with one letter from Bijan at http:// 
> lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0327.html
> OWL E
> OWL D
> OWL R
>  would maybe modify to OWL2E, OWL2D and OWL2R.
>
> I think it's short enough to allow sub flavors like OWL2R-DL and  
> OWL2R-Full.

-Alan

On Apr 28, 2008, at 10:26 AM, 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...I was  
> just trying to report the state of play as I understand it. Nameing  
> these suckers is damn hard, I'm finding.
>
> EL++     OWL-Ont
> DL Lite  OWL-Rel (for relational?)
> OWL-R  OWL-Rul
>
> These have the advantage of being somewhat consistent and equi- 
> repellent. The disadvantage is that they are very repellent :(
>
> I guess we could try single letters across the board:
>
> OWL E
> OWL D
> OWL R
>
> These all potentially scan:
>
> 	OWLy
> 	OWLed
> 	OWLer
>
> But, that sucks too :(
>
> One could try modeling names on DLP:
>
> OWL EDL (for EL++ DL)
> OWL RDL (for relational DL)
> OWL DLP (for description logic programs)
>
> Or
> 	EON (Existential ONtologies, conflicts with the EON workshop)
> 	RON (Relational ONtolgoies, conflicts with people I know)
> 	FON (Forwardchaingingrules/Full ONtologies, could be fun)
>
> Ok, I got *nothin*. Sorry. I can live with the current names, I guess.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>