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

Re: importing RDF and OWL

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 09:55:23 -0400
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <14129.1210514123@ubuhebe>


> >> * ... I think maybe "Context" can be thought of as "Language".  You're
> >>   loading some data/rules/knowledge, and naming the language it's
> >>   written in, in case it's not properly labeled (as RDF data is not).
> > 
> > Yes, that is probably be a better name.
> > Other opinions?
> 
> I guess I'm OK with "Language" and prefer it over "Context" but it is 
> more than just the language that is being referred to. How about 
> "Entailment Regime"?

During the telecon we talked about this and settled on "Profile", which
is the term the OWL-WG has settled on for DL vs. Full vs OWL-R, etc [1].
I hope you're okay with that.

For the record, this is the sense of "profile" about which wikipedia
says [2]

    * Profile (engineering):

        * In standardization, a profile consists of an agreed-upon
          subset and interpretation of a specification. 

    -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Minutes#The_name_of_the_document
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile
Received on Sunday, 11 May 2008 13:57:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT