W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Primer review, part 1 Introduction, Orientation sections

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:39:38 -0500
Message-Id: <085709A3-DC7E-424B-BE50-B49F2AFD07F9@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
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".
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 00:39:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2008 00:39:56 GMT