Added more names

Web Meeting (Hans, Henrik, Gerd, Martin, Oliver)

Will it b possible to build a basic Modelica compiler that is then extended later?
- Yes that should be possible to use another front-end and focus on compiling the output of that.

Will it be possible to split the Modelica language specification into a base and advanced part?
Hans:
To make this happen will be quite involved. It's too early to say if it will make things really easier.
Oliver:
In terms of maintenance it will be very attractive, but a long way to get there.
Henrik:
Having two specifications will be very bad for new comers.
We cannot afford maintaining two compilers.
Hans:
Even if it's a goal we cannot foresee how long it takes.
Henrik:
One reason for portability issues is the high complexity of Modelica leading to different interpretations.
With a basic Modelica language will be make big step forward in this direction.


Poll:
- lower to Base Modelica: Hans, Henrik, Gerd, Oliver
- abstain: Martin

Decision to change terminology to "Base Modelica"

Next steps:
- update documents as part of the PR [Henrik]
- organize a meeting with the language group to present the results.
- prepare an outline of the presentation [Oliver]
- prepare a first draft of the presentation
- review and discuss in meeting

RationaleMCP/0031/name-of-the-game.md

@@ -12,17 +12,24 @@ Below, pros and cons of the name candidates are given.
 
 Filename extension alternatives: _.mof_, _.fmo_, _.flm_
 
+Name of action for producing: flattening
+
 Pros:
 - Historically established for similar representations
 
 Cons:
 - Not same as things called _Flat Modelica_ in the past
 - "Flat" could mean scalarized (not allowing records and arrays) to some readers
+- Is very closely tied to the compilation process.
+- May be confused with the flattening of Modelica, which is only partially true.
+- Introducing "Flat Modelica" will make people believe that flattening is generating "Flat Modelica" code.
 
 ### Modelica Intermediate Representation
 
 Filename extension alternatives: _.mir_, _.moi_
 
+Name of action for producing: transform
+
 Pros:
 - No historical baggage
 - Free of misleading connotations
@@ -35,11 +42,34 @@ Cons:
 
 Filename extension alternatives: _.lmo_, _.mol_
 
+Name of action for producing: lower
+
 Pros:
 - "Lowered" reflects closeness to full Modelica
 - No historical baggage
 - Free of misleading connotations
 
 Cons:
 - Only some engineers have intuitive understanding of "lowered"
-- Doesn't immediately suggest similarity to things called _Flat Modelica_ in the past
+- Doesn't immediately suggest similarity to things called _Flat Modelica_ in the past.
+- Having "lowered", as a past tense action term, in the name suggest that it would always be produced from a Modelica model being lowered.
+
+### Base Modelica
+
+Filename extension alternatives: _.bmo_
+
+Name of action for producing: base
+- base, doesn't mean reducing to basic representation but "base on something"
+- lower
+- constitute
+- ground, easily confused
+- simplify, easily confused
+- reduce, easily confused
+
+Pros:
+- Refers to the idea of splitting the complex modelica langugae specification into a _base_ part and an _advanced_ part. 
+- Stress that it's a more basic (simpler) langugage than Modelica.
+- Is less technical than _lowered_ and _intermediate representation_, which leaves more room for us to decide on the interpretation.
+
+Cons:
+- May raise the expectation that _Modelica_ is an extension of _Base Modelica_, which will strictly speaking not be the case.