Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> 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")
> 

EL and DB sounds actually good to me (sorry Markus, I prefer the 
two-letter alternatives:-)

For the third, LB is not bad; another alternative may be 'RL' (for 
rules) although it is not necessarily easy to pronounce...


I.

> 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
>>     *
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf