- From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:39:22 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > 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... So can I. > I was just trying > to report the state of play as I understand it. Nameing these suckers is damn > hard, I'm finding. Absolutely. > EL++ OWL-Ont If we want to change the name, it would have to be sth like this, I guess. The problem with an alternative name for EL++ is that its distinguishing feature is that it is more a real ontology language than the other fragments. But then, it feels strange to emphasize that property since, after all, what we are standardizing *is* ontology languages. > DL Lite OWL-Rel (for relational?) I find that a little misleading. Speaking about relations is not exactly one of DL Lite's strengths (unless the relations are unary). > OWL-R OWL-Rul Made me laugh, but maybe it only sounds funny in German. :) I would propose names here if I could come up with good suggestions, but I can't. Since, as Ian says, the names are already in wide circulation, sticking with the existing names may not be the worst choice. greetings, Carsten -- * Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden * * Office phone:++49 351 46339171 mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de *
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:40:18 UTC