Re: new names for OWL lite/fast/large

For OWL Light, OWL Lite (or Light if you prefer) seems hard to beat:
it captures the intention and will be widely understood. There were
some mutterings about it being pejorative, but I just don't see that
- after all, it has been used with many products, and I doubt this
would be the case if it was perceived to have negative connotations.

For fast OWL, I prefer simply OWL: it correctly captures the
relationship with OWL Lite (and Large OWL), it simplifies the naming
process (only two qualifiers to think of), and it maintains a simple
relationship with DAML+OIL. If we have to have a qualifier, possible
options could be: Standard OWL, Reasonable OWL (joke).

For large OWL, OWL Plus is the best I have seen to date. I don't think
that it would be a good idea to use "OWL" for large OWL given that we
already have two smaller languages: it would make it hard for the
names to capture the relationships - unless we want to rename them
lite (for fast owl) and super-lite (for lite). Combining Dan's bronze,
silver, gold idea, and Peter's OWL species idea, we could go for tawny
OWL (it's kind of like gold).

Ian



On October 19, Jim Hendler writes:
> 
> At 11:30 PM +0200 10/18/02, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
> >>ACTION Frank: collect suggestions for replacement name (for owl lite,
> >>large, and fast)
> >
> >We should get this ball rolling if we want to use the new names in 
> >our soon-to-be-released documents.
> >
> >Candidates so far:
> >
> >OWL Light: ?
> >OWL fast: OWL/FOL-style
> >OWL large: OWL/RDF-style
> >
> >Please consume the appropriate chemical substances
> >(you could start with cafeine:-),
> >let your creativity flow,
> >and send me your suggestions.
> >
> >I will collect and report back.
> >
> >Frank.
> >   ----
> 
> One thing I've learned in interacting with people about"The Web 
> Ontology Language, OWL" is that on the web, being cute is a bad idea. 
> People in the business world have little or no humor when it comes to 
> this stuff.  Let's try hard not to be "funny" and risk either the 
> language being ignored as a toy or the language developers renaming 
> it to what THEY think are good names.
> 
> One software vendor, not participating in our group, suggested to me 
> we should use
>   OWL Lite
>   OWL
>   OWL Plus (or OWL Full)
> 
> or
> 
>   OWL Lite
>   OWL DL (or logic - but they thought that Description Logics had been 
> around a while and were possibly a good marketing hook)
>   OWL
> 
> They felt that "lite" is actually a positive branding in the market 
> (think about  BBedit-Lite(tm), Eudora-Lite(tm), etc.) in fact, one 
> idea is they might give away tools for OWL Lite to create a market, 
> and then sell more capable "OWL" tools -- much as the other tool 
> vendors give away Lite versions and sell better ones.
> 
> They felt one of our versions should just be called OWL, it will make 
> it easier for them to sell "OWL" projects - they didn't care too much 
> which - if Fast Owl is called OWL, they would prefer the "bigger" one 
> be called Plus or Full or something positive, if the other way (which 
> they slightly preferred) they actually liked DL (or Description 
> Logic) because they think that has some potential in the market 
> theyr'e interested in
> 
>   This is a company that is thinking about entering the market w/some 
> OWL stuff if they can convince their marketing people to go there
>   -JH
> p.s. They said okay to share the above, but not to identify the 
> company or the business model they will use.
> 
> -- 
> Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

Received on Sunday, 20 October 2002 07:15:50 UTC