how we refer to SSFSS (not urgent)

> > * (here and elsewhere) "OWL 2 Specification" is a really bad reference
> >   name for Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax.  I
> >   don't know what we should call it, but calling part 2 of the OWL 2
>     	       	       	      	       	   	   ^?
> >   specification "specification" is ... not okay.  (Yes, I know we've
> >   done this in our other publication so far; I didn't want to make a
> >   stink then because we'd argued too much about naming, but now looking
> >   at it again from the perspective of someone coming fresh to our
> >   documents, ...  "No!")
> > 
> >   There's an argument that we should always refer to other parts of the
> >   OWL 2 spec using the approved shortname, in which case this reference
> >   would be "owl2-syntax", but ... that's a pretty confusing name, too,
> >   especially in a sentence explaining how it's not about syntax.
> > 
> >   I think my favorite would be "OWL2 Structures".  Maybe we should
> >   change the shortname from owl2-syntax to owl2-structures, too.
> 
> +1 to OWL 2 Structural Specification (Some of my edits may have
> alleviated this problem)

I guess this okay for now -- and I guess there's a lot of history here
-- but it still strikes me as rather cumbersome.  Why do we need the
word "Specification" in there?  If we have it there, then why not
"Specification of Direct Semantics" and "Manchester Syntax
Specification", etc.  Is it just that all the other names seemed worse?
Names like "OWL 2 Structures" and "OWL 2 Constructs" and "OWL 2 Abstract
Syntax" have some intense negatives that I don't know about?  (I'm
re-reading the abstract and introduction, to see how it talks about
itself.  When I listen to Boris talk about it, "Structures" seems like
the right name; from the abstract, "Constructs" seems good.)

      -- Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 02:47:38 UTC