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

Re: [SE] Suggestion of new note

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:17:51 +0100
Message-ID: <434A31BF.2030909@smi.stanford.edu>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Mike
> Just a remark about your use of "sets" in the second slide
> "OWL: classes are sets of individuals"
> ...
> Beyond vocabulary, it's unclear to me what kind of opposition you want to capture in
> defining OO classes as types vs OWL classes as sets. Could you expand on this point?

Again, this goes back to the comparison table from the W3C draft, and I 
may comment on that.  The opposition is not really strict, but was more 
meant to help OO developers understand the concept behind OWL and DLs. 
In a sense, OO classes also describe sets, but the term "set" usually 
rings the bell of Venn Diagrams, and this is exactly the metaphor which 
people should have in mind for OWL.  OO classes are often just 
implementation artifacts, convenient to wrap things together that are 
related.  If this distinction is too blurred or unhelpful for the 
purpose of the document, I'd be happy to remove/reword it.

Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 09:18:08 UTC

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