- From: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:02:13 +0100
- To: Mike Uschold <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, best-practice <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Mike I don't seem to have received the original of this - ALL OEP folk... Nor of most of the other things under the heading OEP Task Force. Could we please be sure to copy things to the main swbp list or establish a separate list. It is easy to leave people off private lists. (I also understand more now about the comment from Debby on part-of which was a complete mystery to me last night. I see I am not on the recipients list for the fragments below). Thanks Alan Pat Hayes wrote: >> OEP group: > >> > >> Here are some slides by Mitch Kokar that I was referring to in the telecon (Found by Google Desktop, in mere moments, saving several 10s to a few 100s of seconds of effort with a good chance of failure) > > Provided you live in a software world entirely created by Bill Gates; otherwise it is useless. But let us leave such discussions aside for now. > >> Slide 37 starts off the UML vs. OWL ideas. > > Nice slides. I think it might be worth adding a brief exposition of *why* OWL is the way that it is wrt things like multiple inheritance and monotonicity. Several of the features/bugs of the RDF/OWL design follow from its intended use as a web-wide ontology communication language, not just a 'standard' ontology language, and it helps if you have these (relatively few and simple) ideas at hand, if only as a memory aid. Pat > >> > >> Im cc¹g this to Mitch, in case he is interested. > >> > >> MITCH: this relates to a W3C working group effort called: Semantic Web Best Practice and Deployment. We wish to publish a short note explaining OWL to people in the object-oriented/UML world. Your slides are the best Iv seen on this. If you have any additional materials on this, please send them along. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Deborah L. McGuinness [mailto:dlm@ksl.stanford.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:04 PM >> To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov >> Cc: phayes@ihmc.us; welty@us.ibm.com; Uschold, Michael F; a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it; noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU >> Subject: Re: OEP task force web page > >> > >> i am the one who started the geographic containment as a good example domain for a note. >> i suggested that because i get asked about it a lot and also because when i picked up lambrix's thesis[1] and took a number of of the part-whole relationships from that and put it in our reasoning environment at stanford, it was the most heavily used inference. >> >> i also was using part of in a more common usage form. >> >> deborah >> >> [1] Patrick Lambrix. Part-Whole Reasoning in an Object-Centered Framework, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1771, Springer Verlag, 2000. abstract >> >> ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote: > >> Michael Uschold wrote: > >> > >> >> >> > NB,when I say 'part of' I'm not restricting its usage to mean the >> >> > merelogical part of, but a more general relation as used in English. >> >> > >> >> > We may have to agree on some terms and use them consistently, else we will >> >> > be talking across purposes. >> >> > >> >> > >> So have I and others in the WG (IMO). However, I have no problem using some > >> other term to specify this general family of relations, given that this > >> one has a more well-defined meaning for some. > >> > >> -Evan > >> > >> > >> >> > >> -- > >> Deborah L. McGuinness > >> Co-Director Knowledge Systems Laboratory > >> Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 > >> Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 > >> email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu > >> URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm > >> (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 > >> >> Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint; >> name="KokarOntology Development.ppt" >> Content-Description: KokarOntology Development.ppt >> Content-Disposition: attachment; >> filename="KokarOntology Development.ppt" > >>
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 07:02:07 UTC