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

RE: [SE] Suggestion of new note

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:36:45 -0700
Message-ID: <4301AFA5A72736428DA388B73676A381B4C9E2@XCH-NW-6V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Holger Knublauch" <holgi@stanford.edu>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Here are my latest slides on the difference between object-oriented and
OWL.

Mike


============================================
Mike Uschold
Tel: 425 865-3605              Fax: 425 865-2965
============================================



>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Holger Knublauch [mailto:holgi@stanford.edu] 
>  Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:13 AM
>  To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>  Subject: Re: [SE] Suggestion of new note
>  
>  
>  
>  Hi Mike,
>  
>  thanks again for your comments.  Sorry I could not respond 
>  earlier - I 
>  am currently in the (time consuming) process of looking for 
>  a new job :)
>  
>  Comments below.
>  Holger
>  
>  
>  Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>  > Holger,
>  > 
>  > 1. This document is not listed as a deliverable in the TF 
>  Web page, is 
>  > that intentional?
>  
>  I will send the current draft to Jeff soon - it should be listed.
>  
>  
>  > 2. A few more quick thoughts on the table comparing 
>  OBJECT-ORIENTED 
>  > and OWL.
>  > 
>  > This is wordy and hard to follow:
>  > 
>  > Instances can only take values for the properties attached 
>  to its type.
>  > Values must be of the correct types defined for the properties.  	
>  > 
>  > Any instance can take arbitrary values for any property, 
>  but this may 
>  > affect what reasoners can infer about their types.
>  
>  I have cleaned this up, following your suggestion in the 
>  follow up email.
>  
>  
>  > This suggests that OWL is at a disadvantage, it can't do 
>  privacy. You 
>  > need to emphazize the OWL Advantage that it makes it 
>  possible to link 
>  > ontologies from all over the place, and privacy can 
>  probably be added, 
>  > so is not a fundamental difference.
>  > 
>  > Classes can encapsulate their members to private access.  	
>  > 
>  > All parts of an OWL/RDF file are public and can be linked to from 
>  > anywhere else.
>  
>  I wouldn't read the current statement as a negative statement.  I 
>  mention that all parts "can be linked to", which sounds like an 
>  additional feature to me.  However, I don't really see how 
>  privacy can 
>  be added in OWL.  Neither is better or worse, but both approaches 
>  fulfill their design goals.

I'm not sure we're in agreement, but it is not a big point. Might be
easily addressed by slight rewording to make it less likely for someone
to give it a negative interpretation.



>  > Also, the long list is hard to make sense of, there are nice 
>  > categories that would be good to use to organize the 
>  items. Even if 
>  > there is just one entry in the category, it highlihts the 
>  topic making 
>  > it easier to
>  > understand:
>  > * Classes and Instances/Individuals
>  > * Properties, Attributes and Values
>  > * Errors and Consistency checking
>  > * Maturity 
>  > * Worldliness (open vs. closed)        [not serious about 
>  the category
>  > name :-)
>  
>  This is a great idea and I have done some partitioning for 
>  the next draft.
>  
>  
>  


Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 19:36:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:44 UTC