W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:12:56 -0400
Cc: "'Ian Horrocks'" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EA973C6D-2950-4E9D-9B7E-347471918B2B@creativecommons.org>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Good - satisfied now (as much as I'm going to be), so you can close  
this one.
(The original comment was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0040.html 
  in case you've lost track.)

Jonathan

On Mar 30, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Boris Motik wrote:

> Hello,
>
> You are right -- I got mixed up. In UML, associations and elementary  
> values are
> instances of UML metaclasses; however, going there might be way too  
> complicated
> for the standard readers. Hence, I've followed your suggestion and  
> have changed
> the sentence to this:
>
>    Objects ''o<sub>1</sub>'' and ''o<sub>2</sub>'' from the structural
>    specification are ''structurally equivalent'' if the following  
> conditions
>    hold:
>
> Please let us know whether this addresses your concerns. Thanks  
> again for this
> valuable input!
>
> Regards,
>
> 	Boris
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-comments-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees
>> Sent: 30 March 2009 15:42
>> To: Ian Horrocks
>> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jonathan
>>>
>>> We sent you a response [1] to your comment [2] on the OWL 2 Web
>>> Ontology Language last call drafts, but to date we do not appear to
>>> have received any reply. If we don't hear from you we will assume
>>> that you are satisfied with the working group's response to your
>>> comment.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ian Horrocks
>>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>>
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>> comments/2009Mar/0044.html
>>> [2]
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/760bcb2a0901251002p3e1be898s246b23e4284ac49a@mail.gmail 
>> .
>> com
>>
>> The definition of structural equivalence doesn't make sense. Here is
>> what's in the wiki now:
>>
>> <snip>
>> Instances o1 and o2 of the UML classes from the structural
>> specification are structurally equivalent if the following conditions
>> hold:
>>
>>     * If o1 and o2 are atomic values, such as strings or integers,
>> they are structurally equivalent if they are equal according to the
>> notion of equality of the respective UML type.
>>     * If o1 and o2 are unordered associations without repetitions,
>> they are structurally equivalent if each element of o1 is  
>> structurally
>> equivalent to some element of o2 and vice versa.
>>     * If o1 and o2 are ordered associations with repetitions, they
>> are structurally equivalent if they contain the same number of
>> elements and each element of o1 is structurally equivalent to the
>> element of o2 with the same index.
>>     * If o1 and o2 are instances of UML classes from the structural
>> specification, they are structurally equivalent if
>>           o both o1 and o2 are instances of the same UML class, and
>>           o each association of o1 is structurally equivalent to the
>> corresponding association of o2 and vice versa.
>> </snip>
>>
>> By hypothesis, o1 and o2 are instances of UML classes. Therefore, by
>> the first three points, atomic values, unordered associations, and
>> ordered associations are all also instances of UML classes. As I do
>> not know the details of UML I might assume that this is OK. However,
>> the last bullet point repeats the hypothesis that o1 and o2 are
>> instances of UML classes from the S.S. This does not sound right to
>> me, and suggests a possible editorial improvement, if not an error.
>>
>> I suggest rewriting to either remove the first hypothesis (at the  
>> very
>> top) somehow, if atomic values and so on are not instances of UML
>> classes, or the antecedent of the fourth bullet point, if they are.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 18:13:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 March 2009 18:13:56 GMT