- From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:55:33 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: >The problem here is that the W3C style guide is not very helpful because >OWL is not an acronym. We thus have the choice of making it look like an >acronym by titling our documents > Web Ontology Language (OWL) ... >or make it look like a proper name by titling our documents > [The] OWL Web Ontology Language ... > >The former course will lead to questions about why we have misspelled an >acronym. The latter course deviates (a bit) from the recommended titling. > >I do agree that we do not really need to spend telecon time on this. I'm >even quite happy to have the chair(s) propose a naming scheme. However, I >am not happy without a common naming scheme. Coincidentally, I was reading a proposal last night that demonstrated the confusion caused by our current naming scheme. It called OWL the Ontology Web Language, of course. I agree with Peter that the current scheme makes OWL look like an acronym and thus confuses. -Evan
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 08:55:45 UTC