- From: Markus Krötzsch <mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:47:02 +0200
- To: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <200804301647.08433.mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Not caring about any particular name or pronunciation, I still think name changes would really be in order. Main requirements are: * unified naming: profile names should look somewhat similar in shape, * avoid non-letter symbols ("+") * avoid "Lite" I would be happy with Bijan's one-letter version (E, D, R). At least these are easily recognised as smaller profiles. For a two-letter version, I would prefer: EL, DB, LP. (Some of these might be too close to "DL") Three-letter alternatives were already given by Bijan. I prefer the one-letter names. They are least likely to be confused with each other or other OWL versions, and they are uniform, easy to remember, and not taken in the literature. -- Markus P.S.: I generally oppose the use of "OWL Rules" and anything very similar. There are existing approaches (yes, including my own works, but also the Protege plugin presented at OWLED DC [Gasse/Sattler/Haarslev]) that allow much more rules/rule syntax in OWL 2. We should avoid the confusion. Also, future OWL/RIF efforts may have to say more about rules for/with OWL. On Montag, 28. April 2008, Carsten Lutz wrote: > 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 > * -- Markus Krötzsch Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), 76128 Karlsruhe phone +49 (0)721 608 7362 fax +49 (0)721 608 5998 mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de www http://korrekt.org
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 14:47:43 UTC