A vote for the 1 letter names: On May 20, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Melanie Courtot wrote: > like the proposal with one letter from Bijan at http:// > lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0327.html > OWL E > OWL D > OWL R > would maybe modify to OWL2E, OWL2D and OWL2R. > > I think it's short enough to allow sub flavors like OWL2R-DL and > OWL2R-Full. -Alan On Apr 28, 2008, at 10:26 AM, 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...I was > just trying to report the state of play as I understand it. Nameing > these suckers is damn hard, I'm finding. > > EL++ OWL-Ont > DL Lite OWL-Rel (for relational?) > OWL-R OWL-Rul > > These have the advantage of being somewhat consistent and equi- > repellent. The disadvantage is that they are very repellent :( > > I guess we could try single letters across the board: > > OWL E > OWL D > OWL R > > These all potentially scan: > > OWLy > OWLed > OWLer > > But, that sucks too :( > > One could try modeling names on DLP: > > OWL EDL (for EL++ DL) > OWL RDL (for relational DL) > OWL DLP (for description logic programs) > > Or > EON (Existential ONtologies, conflicts with the EON workshop) > RON (Relational ONtolgoies, conflicts with people I know) > FON (Forwardchaingingrules/Full ONtologies, could be fun) > > Ok, I got *nothin*. Sorry. I can live with the current names, I guess. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 06:11:08 UTC