W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [OEP] Purpose of the note on "classes as values". [Was: Close to final draft of "classes as values" note]

From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:41:32 -0700
Message-Id: <379B8D30-B5F2-11D8-9AA9-000A958B5C28@smi.stanford.edu>
Cc: Brian McBride <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>


>  Another go at a difficult problem that ought to be easy...
>  It seems to me that a critical issue is which of two cases you are 
> dealing with:
>  Case 1: You are using  an existing ontology as a reference to 
> annotate, label, or otherwise carry static information for 
> applications which will query it at 'run time'.  The applications 
> assume that all implications are explicit and add no new information 
> to the ontology.
>  Case 2: You are re-using the ontology as a module of a larger 
> ontology which you are authoring, possibly to be used eventually as in 
> case 1.

Indeed -- I tried to add it to the new draft. I think it is important 
to identify these two cases, but at the same time I don't think they 
affect most of these approaches all that much. Approach 2 clearly is 
problematic if you are dealing with Case 1, but others don't seem to 
alter the "natural" semantics. I don't think the issue of whether the 
hierarchy is classified or not per se belongs in this note. It is a 
separate usage issue, the one where you have a great point to make and 
I hope will put it into another document from the WG that this one can 
cross-reference. I am a big believer to address only the specific issue 
at stake in these types of documents and to give the reader pointers 
for all the other issues it touches upon.

Or do you think this more detailed discussion really belongs in this 
note (and not another one)?


Received on Friday, 4 June 2004 02:41:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC