RE: [SE] Suggestion of new note

Quick revision, in think I figured out what the 2nd point means, and I
added a third. Is this right?

Properties, Attributes and Values 
OO: 
Properties attached to single class; inherited to its subclasses.
Instances can have values only for attached properties. Values must be
correctly typed. 
Range constraints used for type checking 

Ont:  
Properties stand alone. Attached to multiple classes via domain
constraints and inheritance 
Individuals can have arbitrary values for any property 
Range constraints used for type inference and type checking 

NB I added the last one, you hint at type inference, but don't come out
and say it.
A very important difference. One can conclude the type of an individual
from its place in a relationship instance.

MIke


>  >  -----Original Message-----
>  >  From: Holger Knublauch [mailto:holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU]
>  >  Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:24 PM
>  >  To: Uschold, Michael F
>  >  Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>  >  Subject: Re: [SE] Suggestion of new note
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  Mike,
>  >  
>  >  a thousand thanks for these very helpful and constructive 
>  comments!
>  >  
>  >  The new draft is available from
>  >  
>  >  http://www.knublauch.com/oop/2005/09/23
>  >  
>  >  I fully agree with almost all your comments and tried to
>  >  integrate them 
>  >  as good as possible - my apologies where I failed to 
>  address them. 
>  >  Below are some comments on your comments.
>  >  
>  >  Holger
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>  >  > The note should have a better introduction. It starts by
>  >  diving right 
>  >  > in, w/o any context setting. Say much earlier what is the 
>  >  > storyline/contents/overview of the paper as well as outline the 
>  >  > specific objectives. The latter can be accomplished by the 
>  >  sentence 
>  >  > used in the email announcing this draft (see below).
>  >  > 
>  >  > Here is some sample text that attempts to describe the 
>  >  overall story 
>  >  > and motivates the note:
>  >  > 
>  >  > ==
>  >  > Great progress has been made in the use of models in software 
>  >  > engineering, the benefits are (blah blah blah).  Recent 
>  MDA-based 
>  >  > software development tools move this forward 
>  >  significantly, addressing 
>  >  > some of the common issued in software engineering such 
>  as: models 
>  >  > being use only at the beginning and getting out of date as code 
>  >  > develops. However, there are still challenges. <name them, like 
>  >  > interoperability>
>  >  
>  >  I believe we should be careful not to limit our discussion to MDA.
>  >  Software development reality also contains agile 
>  approaches, and our 
>  >  goal should be to attract real-world programmers.  Some 
>  programmers 
>  >  don't believe in MDA.  MDA is fine for some things but has also 
>  >  limitations.  What we suggest with OWL is a kind of agile 
>  MDA that 
>  >  should suit many people.  In a sense, software 
>  development with OWL 
>  >  takes MDA to extremes, in so far that design models are even 
>  >  used at run 
>  >  time.
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  > It seems you should make a distinction between object-oriented
>  >  > software languages like Java, C++, etc. and 
>  >  object-oriented modeling 
>  >  > languages like UML [and frame-based representation 
>  languages that 
>  >  > pre-dated OWL].
>  >  
>  >  I did not understand the context of this comment.  Could you
>  >  be a bit 
>  >  more specific and tell me where this distinction is 
>  needed?  Thanks.
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  > Instead of a laundry list of added expressivity, motivate
>  >  the need for them with some examples. This brings it to 
>  >  life.   Start with an example with some depth and detail to 
>  >  it, and show in that single example how the various features 
>  >  of the language are used and how they help. It is one thing 
>  >  to merely be ABLE to express something, it is another for 
>  >  that to add value somehow.  
>  >  
>  >  The old draft was clumsy and incomplete with respect to explaining
>  >  restrictions.  I have totally restructurd this part, and 
>  >  added a Venn 
>  >  diagram which should make things clearer and motivate reasoning.
>  >  
>  >  
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2005 17:44:37 UTC