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

Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 18:28:09 +0200 (CEST)
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, 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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805211827110.571@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

On Wed, 21 May 2008, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:
>
> I personally prefer the two letter variants

Same here. +1 for the two letters, as they are sufficiently short and 
meaningful to the (many) people who know the origin of the profiles.

greetings,
 		Carsten


, 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
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

--
*      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden       *
*     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 16:28:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 May 2008 16:28:58 GMT