W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: new names for OWL lite/fast/large

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 18 Oct 2002 17:18:43 -0500
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1034979524.10052.39.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 16:30, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
> > ACTION Frank: collect suggestions for replacement name (for owl lite,
> > large, and fast)
> We should get this ball rolling if we want to use the new names in our 
> soon-to-be-released documents.
> Candidates so far:
> OWL Light: ?
> OWL fast: OWL/FOL-style
> OWL large: OWL/RDF-style


I don't think "FOL-style" means much to web developers.

Borrowing from the WiFi/WEO world, we could go
with gold/silver/bronze. Sorta content-free, though.

Similarly OWL level 1/2/3.

Let's see; the salient characteristics of light
are: maximal interoperability, ease of implementation,
ease of learning/training/UI, at a cost of expressive
(and inferential) power.

names that come to mind: OWL easy, OWL small, minimal OWL

of fast: guaranteed/complete results in a (fairly?) predictable
running time, at a cost of some expressiveness and flexibility
of expression; substantial
implementation cost, but a cost that has been paid
by several projects, with at least one open source

names: computable OWL, OWL traditional, OWL classical,
	constrained OWL, flat OWL

of large: maximal expressive power, where the cost
is that the computers aren't guaranteed to realize
all the consequences of what you write.

names: full OWL, web OWL

Hmm... the more I think about it, the
more I like lite/fast/large.

> Please consume the appropriate chemical substances
> (you could start with cafeine:-),
> let your creativity flow,
> and send me your suggestions.
> I will collect and report back.
> Frank.
>    ----
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 18:19:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:48 UTC