- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:26:01 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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.
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:26:20 UTC