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

RE: [SE] Suggestion of new note

From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:16:20 -0700
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, "Holger Knublauch" <holgi@stanford.edu>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MGEEIEEKKOMOLNHJAHMKOEPHDOAA.jmcclure@hypergrove.com>

Mike,
I saw no mention of property subtyping in your slides. One basic idea you may
wish to stress is that OO classes comprise a process model, while OWL is for
concept models. Also, that the most basic OO languages provide typing just for
runtime instances, while those that treat classes as instances provide typing
for classes also, i.e., metaclasses. OWL provides not only subclasses and
metaclasses, but ALSO provides a facility to subtype properties -- three
different hierarchies for the ontologist to grapple with - grr.

Also, I see your keen desire is to say that an OWL/RDF property can be attached
to multiple classes simultaneously, something which could be done in OO, but is
unknown to be done by any extant OO. Maybe that perspective would be easier to
discuss than the notion that "properties are standalone" -- true both
definitively and conceptually, but not exactly communicative in light of the
dearth of processing systems that know what to DO with a 'standalone' property
unconnected to any class!
- jmc

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Uschold, Michael F
>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 12:37 PM
>To: Holger Knublauch
>Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>Subject: RE: [SE] Suggestion of new note
>
>
>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 22:14:45 UTC

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