Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> 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...

Out of the current one-, two-, and three-letter proposals, I very much
favour the two-letter ones. "EL" and "DB" are very natural and under-
standable for EL++ and DL-Lite, and to me "RL" is also fine for OWL-R.
In principle, of course, we do not need the sumber of letters for each
profile and could use "EL", "DB", and "R". I slightly prefer "RL",
though.

greetings,
 		Carsten

>
> 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
>
>

--
*      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden       *
*     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *