- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:59:37 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- 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>
Shouldn't we have the '2' in these names as well? >> OWL RDL (for relational DL) Find the R confusing as any R triggers a 'Rule' flag in my brain. Perhaps DB is better. DDL? (data description logic) >> OWL EDL (for EL++ DL) Don't really know what EL stands for either (to be honest), I'd guess the 'E' is for existential? If we want the names to be acronyms of a descriptive name, perhaps CDL (concept/class description logic) or TDL (term DL). On the other hand, the use of EL is rather widespread already. Should the 'descriptive name' be about the kind of reasoning a profile is optimised for (data vs. terms), or about the most distinguishing language feature? (relations vs. existential restrictions) >> OWL DLP (for description logic programs) What would the corresponding name for OWL-R Full be? OWL FLP (OWL Flop? hmmm, perhaps not so good ;)) -Rinke > Actually, these are not bad at all... > > Can someone solve a mystery for me? Where does the 'EL++' > terminology come from? I can relate, technically, both to RDL and > DLP, but not to that EDL because of that (I am not knowledgable of > Description Logic...) > > Ivan > > > -- > > 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 ----------------------------------------------- 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 Thursday, 1 May 2008 08:00:13 UTC