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

Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:36:20 +0200
Cc: 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>
Message-Id: <7B7F835A-EACC-4F45-B3BE-6E42B9B31996@uva.nl>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

I just held an opinion poll about profile names with some of my  
colleagues. Just to add to the confusion... ;)

* OWL2E (or OWL E)
* OWL2D (or OWL D)
* OWL2R (or OWL R), possibly OWL2R DL and OWL2R Full

or, alternatively:

* OWL2 EL (or OWL EL)
* OWL2 DB (or OWL DB)
* OWL2 LP and OWL2 DLP (for full and DLP, respectively),

(alternative for the third:  OWL2 RL and OWL2 RL Full / OWL2 RL DL)

or, alternatively

* OWL2 EDL (or OWL EDL, for E++ DL)
* OWL2 RDL (or OWL RDL, for relational DL, though relations are not  
particularly a strength of DL-Lite)
* OWL2 DLP / FLP

And the results are...

* No one liked the one letter proposal: "too short", "sounds funny".  
Most seemed to prefer more meaningful names, or at least names that  
are more indicative of what the purpose of the profile is.

* The contest between one vs. three letter names is indecisive.

* Some preferred the three letter variants, as they are more easily  
pronounced and remembered. The fact that the 'DL' combination is part  
of the three letter name was perceived as a nice feature by some.

* Others preferred the two letter variants because they are closer to  
the original name.

* People were unsure about 'RDL', 'DDL' seemed to be an acceptable  
alternative, although 'DB' is preferred (one liked 'DLL' for 'DL  
Lite', but he has to be excused, as he's a Mac user).

* One did not like the '2' in the names as it made the name similar to  
conversion scripts such as doc2pdf, divx2avi etc.

I personally prefer the two letter variants, with DLP being the  
exception to the rule. And I don't mind the 2. (Basically this is  
Markus' original proposal)

Best,

	Rinke


On 21 mei 2008, at 06:25, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>

-----------------------------------------------
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, 21 May 2008 13:36:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 May 2008 13:36:58 GMT