Re: Enhancing object-oriented programming with OWL

On 17 August 2012 23:08, Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstrong@gmx.com> wrote:

> Certainly, object-oriented classes and OWL classes are different, but my
> understanding is that the main difference is just that OWL is strictly
> better.
>

What do you mean by 'strictly', 'better' and 'strictly better'?


>  I'm not aware of anything OOP can do that OWL cannot do, but OWL can do a
> lot more.
>

What do you mean by 'do'? Do you mean it is more expressive such that it is
possible to define in OWL what cannot be defined in OOP? Isn't that
axiomatic in that they are different languages with different semantics?
What you are really saying is that you want to extend the syntax of OOP in
a form you think is convenient to use such that it will be able to express
OWL semantics.

Well, abstract classes, but that's all I can think of.
>
So is this relevant?

Or if there is still going to be a disparity,
>
What does this mean?


> we should still just be able to add all the OWL class constructs and
> everything else about OWL and let people use them in OOP.
>
You mean with your annotations - but the issue really is whether this is
more convenient than existing approaches.


> We'd need to get into a compiler to do some of it, but I think it would be
> worth it.
>
Why would it be necessary to get into the compiler, what are you talking
about?
Do you mean to pick up annotations - that is not necessary as new
annotations can be defined as things stand - or to optimise such as in the
way you mention where reasoning is selective. I can't see that this needs
access to the compiler so much as an understanding of the logic of whether
and when selective reasoning is a proper optimisation.

You would have to show that your approach is better than the existing
approaches to optimisation that sit on top of triple and quad stores.
Can you do this?

Adam