- From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:12:53 -0400
- 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>
Hi, For OWL R, what about OWL Rules, or OWL SR (for simple rules), or OWL RP (rules profile)? Zhe 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...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 19:21:20 UTC