- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:36:20 +0200
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- 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>
I just held an opinion poll about profile names with some of my colleagues. Just to add to the confusion... ;) * OWL2E (or OWL E) * OWL2D (or OWL D) * OWL2R (or OWL R), possibly OWL2R DL and OWL2R Full or, alternatively: * OWL2 EL (or OWL EL) * OWL2 DB (or OWL DB) * OWL2 LP and OWL2 DLP (for full and DLP, respectively), (alternative for the third: OWL2 RL and OWL2 RL Full / OWL2 RL DL) or, alternatively * OWL2 EDL (or OWL EDL, for E++ DL) * OWL2 RDL (or OWL RDL, for relational DL, though relations are not particularly a strength of DL-Lite) * OWL2 DLP / FLP And the results are... * No one liked the one letter proposal: "too short", "sounds funny". Most seemed to prefer more meaningful names, or at least names that are more indicative of what the purpose of the profile is. * The contest between one vs. three letter names is indecisive. * Some preferred the three letter variants, as they are more easily pronounced and remembered. The fact that the 'DL' combination is part of the three letter name was perceived as a nice feature by some. * Others preferred the two letter variants because they are closer to the original name. * People were unsure about 'RDL', 'DDL' seemed to be an acceptable alternative, although 'DB' is preferred (one liked 'DLL' for 'DL Lite', but he has to be excused, as he's a Mac user). * One did not like the '2' in the names as it made the name similar to conversion scripts such as doc2pdf, divx2avi etc. I personally prefer the two letter variants, with DLP being the exception to the rule. And I don't mind the 2. (Basically this is Markus' original proposal) Best, Rinke On 21 mei 2008, at 06:25, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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. >> >> > ----------------------------------------------- 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 Wednesday, 21 May 2008 13:36:57 UTC