Re: ISSUE-108: Names for Profiles

Barry Smith offers

OWL Classes
OWL Instances
OLW Rules

Of what I've seen, I like the single letter names. But really, I  
think we need a marketer to help us figure this out, as my sense is  
that we're all so close to the history that we won't be able to  
appreciate what it's going to be like for the majority who use owl,  
who don't know it. I'm spreading the word....

-Alan



On May 1, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Carsten Lutz wrote:

> 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     *

Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 20:20:16 UTC