- From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:03:41 -0400
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- CC: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
+1 Zhe Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > > On 6 aug 2008, at 17:47, Ian Horrocks wrote: >> I can see the point, and I would have no objection to using the >> 2-letter solution for all the languages *except* OWL Full (which >> would stay as OWL Full) -- OWL DL is already 2-letter compliant. > > +1 > > -Rinke > >> Ian >> >> >> On 6 Aug 2008, at 15:22, Jim Hendler wrote: >> >>> I don't think the issue is resistance, I think the issue is change >>> -- currently Google finds 59000 hits for the phrase "OWL Full" - I >>> suspect a lot of those won't be changed, so both Full and FL would >>> be out there to cause confusion -- or if you want something more >>> specific - Dean Allemang and I have a book which refers to OWL DL >>> and OWL Full -- we'll eventually do a second edition (we hope) to >>> include the OWL 2 stuff, but till then, the book's not about to be >>> republished (not is the van Harmelen book, or any of the 5-6 other >>> Sem Web books out there) -- so you would add tremendous confusion to >>> change "full" to "FL" just so that there's a resonance in names -- I >>> definitely think this is one of those "backwards compatibility" >>> issues your charter mandates be considered -- I understand why it >>> would be nice to have two-letter names for everything, but I don't >>> think it overcomes the barrier -- naming new profiles consistently >>> is great, but changing old ones is confusing and incurs real cost in >>> both OWL adoption (more confusion = less use) and in real dollars - >>> remember that change has economic consequences for real people in >>> the real world. >>> -JH >>> p.s. Note that if the group decided to go with 4 letter names, so >>> Full would stay the same but DL would become, say, "DLog" then I >>> would have the same complaint - this isn't a Full vs. DL issue, it's >>> a "be very conservative on change" issue >>> >>> >>> On Aug 6, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Michael Smith wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 18:01 +0100, Ian Horrocks wrote: >>>>> Jim Hendler has pointed out that there may be some resistance to >>>>> renaming existing languages (i.e., Full) given that many books and >>>>> papers have already been published using those names, and companies >>>>> have tools that already claim to support them. >>>> >>>> OWL FL might be a two letter name for Full that causes less >>>> resistance. >>>> -- >>>> Mike Smith >>>> >>>> Clark & Parsia >>>> >>>> >>> >>> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, >>> would it?." - Albert Einstein >>> >>> Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler >>> Tetherless World Constellation Chair >>> Computer Science Dept >>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > ----------------------------------------------- > Drs. Rinke Hoekstra > > Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra > Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 > Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke > > Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law > University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 > 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands > ----------------------------------------------- > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 16:07:19 UTC