W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2005

Re: OMG Ontology Metamodel Definition Review

From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:56:14 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, Grady Booch <gbooch@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF69D462F7.6E5FECBB-ON80256F96.0062188C-85256F96.00613527@uk.ibm.com>





Jeremy,

Hub and spoke could be important - thats my point, otherwise I would not
have made it. It increases the opportunity for unification.  Lets take this
offline please...?

Regards

Phil Tetlow
Senior Consultant
IBM Business Consulting Services
Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328


                                                                           
             Jeremy Carroll                                                
             <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.                                             
             com>                                                       To 
                                       Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB            
             27/01/2005 12:28                                           cc 
                                       public-swbp-wg@w3.org,              
                                       ewallace@cme.nist.gov, Grady Booch  
                                       <gbooch@us.ibm.com>,                
                                       Cliff.jones@newcastle.ac.uk         
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: OMG Ontology Metamodel          
                                       Definition Review                   
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





My own nervousness was less well-informed.
I believe this document is an important one, and that we should be
encouraging it to completion as quickly as possible.
Hence comments should, in my view:
- help correct the document
- point out important weaknesses
- or be supportive

As far as I could tell, and I am glad that someone better informed about
UML than me tended to agree, the hub-and-spoke comment did not point out
an important weakness, but articulated an alternative design. To fully
address this comment I think would take quite some time, since it's a
few steps backwards before going forwards, and I don't see (any/enough)
benefit for this cost. (All process - no content :( )


Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 17:52:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:41 UTC