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

Re: [OEP] The n-ary relations draft is ready for outside review

From: Natasha Noy <noy@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:58:09 -0700
Message-Id: <704305E4-98DB-4198-96F1-AE4B3BE7E3EC@stanford.edu>
Cc: swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>

Guus,

Thank you for your response, and thanks to you and Chris for trying  
to hammer out some of these things when in Banff.

>>> I suggest to include a UML note, indicating that pattern 1 is
>>> close to what is called an "association class" in UML.
>>>
>> Again, I would appreciate some specific text since whatever I say   
>> would end up being imprecise since I know very little about UML.
>>
>
> Proposed text:
>
> [[
>   UML Note: The "Purchase" use case would in UML typically be  
> modelled as an association class, with the object properties  
> represented as attributes of the association class.
> ]]

Thanks. I've added this to the Purchase example.

>>
>>> [[
>>>   Pattern 2: Using lists for arguments in a relation
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> Alternatives which avoid the use of  RDF list would be worth
>>> mentioning:
>>>
>>> 1. A Flight  is linked to a number of FlightPorts. Each  
>>> FlightPort  is a
>>> class, representing the relation between a port and its sequence   
>>> number
>>> in the Flight. I find this rather ugly, but it is in a sense  
>>> close to
>>> the way use case 1 is represented.
>>>
>>> 2. A Flight is linked to a number of FlightMovement instances. Each
>>> Flight movement represents a relation between from/to
>>> airports. This would probably be my preferred solution.
>>>
>> Ok, I'll try to put them in. Would it be ok simple to mention this  
>> or  do you think it needs a fleshed out example, with code,  
>> diagrams, etc.?
>>
>
> Chris and I discussed this here as well. We think it requires a bit  
> more discussion to get the list pattern right, e.g, at the next OEP  
> telecon.

Sounds good. It would probably be a good idea to try and make sure  
that both Pat (who wrote up this pattern) and Alan are there at the  
telecon if possible. I assume we are talking about this coming  
Monday, October 10, right?

Thanks a lot for your understanding on the other issues! I realize  
that we did not resolve all of them to your satisfaction and  
appreciate your understanding.

Natasha
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:58:31 UTC

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