Re: NAME: SWOL versus WOL

At 5:45 PM +0100 12/25/01, Dieter Fensel wrote:
>Dear all,
>given the email history there are two name candidates for the 
>language we are working
>on. One proposal was WOL and Peter started to use SWOL, however, it was never
>really discussed. I think that SWOL is not such a good name as WOL, mainly
>for two reasons:
>	1. Three letter acronyms work much better (e.g., RDF, XML, 
>UML, OIL, and
>	WWW)
>	2. The semantic web will have been a success when it will be THE WEB.
>	Then, nobody will longer call it the semantic web in case it 
>is this success.
>	That means, SWOL seems to anticipate its failure.
>On the other hand, I think WOL is a perfect name. It is short, easy 
>to memorize, and
>has with Web, Ontologies, and Language all the three essential 
>elements it combines.
>Names should not try to be too complete and detailed (quite 
>different from the formal
>semantics of the language).
>I do not know how fruitful we can discuss this issue via email? 
>Anyway we should
>start to wonder about the logo.

WOW-G - I thought we had pretty much reached consensus on WOL but 
Dieter is right that Peter has been using SWOL and some other folks 
are imitating that.  I think the consensus had focused more on WOL -- 
if others disagree, please let me know - I have been using WOL on 
Coordination Group email, and haven't heard any problems with that. 
We do need to reach consensus on this soon (and also start working on 
a Logo - Dieter is right about that as well)
  -Jim H.

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742

Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2001 13:09:15 UTC