- From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:34:37 +0200 (CEST)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Dear all, I wasn't able to attend last week's telecon because of travelling and will not be able to attend this week's one due to a conflicting meeting (sigh). In the minutes, I saw that issue-108 was discussed last week and deferred to this week. For what it's worth, here is my opinion on it. I think that instead of insisting on the consistent use of one or two-letter names for all profiles, it is more important to choose good names, i.e., names that have that highlight a special feature of the fragment and can be remembered, but are still not too long. My vote goes to OWL-DB and OWL-R. The EL profile is more difficult, and I prefer either OWL-EL or OWL-T, with T standing for *tractable*, and *not* for TBox as suggested last week. Some reasons: - OWL-DB: short and nicely captures the intended use. Much more catchy and descriptive than OWL-D - OWL-R: it seems there is agreement that the "rules" nature of this fragment is what we want to emphasize, so OWL-R is just natural - For the EL fragment, I strongly dislike the proposals OWL-T (with T for TBox) and OWL-C (with C for class) because they are neither catchy nor sufficiently descriptive ("TBox" is only understandable to DL people and neither "TBox" nor "class" says much at all). OWL-EL is very descriptive to those that know about DLs, but clearly there are a lot of OWL users that don't. So an option is OWL-T with T for tractable, as tractability of the main reasoning problem subsumption was the design goal of this profile (the other fragments also happen to be tractable, but that was not the optimization criterion in their design, and they could be further extended without losing tractability). greetings, Carsten PS: If issue-108 can be deferred by one week, I am happy to participate in the discussion. -- * Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden * * Office phone:++49 351 46339171 mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de *
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 16:35:21 UTC