- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 09:55:23 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
> >> * ... I think maybe "Context" can be thought of as "Language". You're
> >> loading some data/rules/knowledge, and naming the language it's
> >> written in, in case it's not properly labeled (as RDF data is not).
> >
> > Yes, that is probably be a better name.
> > Other opinions?
>
> I guess I'm OK with "Language" and prefer it over "Context" but it is
> more than just the language that is being referred to. How about
> "Entailment Regime"?
During the telecon we talked about this and settled on "Profile", which
is the term the OWL-WG has settled on for DL vs. Full vs OWL-R, etc [1].
I hope you're okay with that.
For the record, this is the sense of "profile" about which wikipedia
says [2]
* Profile (engineering):
* In standardization, a profile consists of an agreed-upon
subset and interpretation of a specification.
-- Sandro
[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Minutes#The_name_of_the_document
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile
Received on Sunday, 11 May 2008 13:57:31 UTC