Re: Primer review, part 1 Introduction, Orientation sections

As a reference point, and some background about why I think it has  
the potential to confuse:

http://mumble.net/~jar/articles/oo.html

On Jan 21, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>> I don't consider OWL to be object oriented,
>
> This would seem to be a very much minority view.
>
>> and think this will confuse rather than help.
>
> Well, the point is for both XML and OOP sections are to say,  
> roughly, Yes we have classes and objects, but don't rely on your  
> understanding from other class/object pardigms.

Actually, saying just that might at the beginning might do the trick :)

> Actually, I think it's less important to say *what* the differences  
> are than to make clear that there *are* radical differences. I.e.,  
> to "set the frame". If we say, "Whoa they are radically different"  
> and the person doesn't get how, they are in a much better position  
> to ask questions than if we *don't* say that they are radically  
> different and they don't think to ask certain questions.
>
> In other words, I'd prefer that the fallback mode, in general, be  
> "self aware" confusion than "unknowing misunderstanding".