- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 03:55:04 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>, mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de, 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>
I don't endorse Barry's suggestions - I was just passing them on. As I said, I'm spreading the word around asking for suggestions - perhaps others have ideas about others outside the WG who might have ideas as well. Best, Alan On May 2, 2008, at 3:42 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> 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.... > > Although I agree with the marketer's issue, I think the names by > Barry are really bad, I am sorry:-( As an outsider my immediate > reaction would be that if I use 'OWL Instances' that means I could > not use OWL Classes... Let alone the fact that if I have a sentence > saying 'OWL Classes bla bla', how do I know whether I refer to OWL > Classes in terms of the concept of owl:Class or whether I refer to a > profile? > > Ivan > >> -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 >>> * > > -- > > 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 >
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 07:55:40 UTC