Re: new names for OWL lite/fast/large

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 13:17, Enrico Motta wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> My preference is for something that combines the 2 suggestions from Jim:
> 
> OWL Lite
> OWL DL
> OWL Plus (or OWL Full)

That appeals to me.

I think I prefer OWL Full to OWL Plus; DL and Lite seem to me
to be constrained versions of OWL Full.

> I am not keen on having one of the 3 versions  being called simply 
> 'OWL', with no qualifier. The reason why we have produced 3 dialects 
> is essentially that the WG believes that there is no single OWL which 
> we are prepared to declare as the standard OWL language.  Our naming 
> convention ought to reflect this view.
> 
> Enrico
> 
> PS I strongly dislike OWL/RDF (all OWL dialects are supposed to be 
> based on RDF, so it is going to be confusing that one in particular 
> is called  OWL/RDF and that this is a superset of the others) , 
> OWL/FOL (FOL is misleading, it implies that the others are either not 
> logic-based, or logic-based but not FOL-compliant), and OWL FAST 
> (kind of implies that the others are slow, which is not a good 
> selling point, not even for FAST OWL itself!)

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/