- From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:51:21 -0500
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- cc: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I just read the new draft (Feb 20), as I had the previous
one (Feb 7). I'm generally happy with it, but wanted to
raise a couple concerns before the deadline:
1) The "Explicit ontology extension" section hints that
ontologies are our primary building blocks rather than
classes and properties. I think part of the beauty of
RDF/DAML+OIL is the ability to use or extend any class or
property without much concern for the ontology boundaries
("ontologies" are currently just a loose collection of
classes and properties sharing a common URI sans fragment).
I would hate to see this change.
2) I fear that the current "Classes as instances"
description won't convey sufficient understanding to an
outside reader (a Class is an instance of class Class after
all). Perhaps we need to include the A320 aircraft type
example: we want to be able to specify certain properties
(maxSpeed, passengerSeats, range, etc.) common to all A320's
without having to enumerate them for each instance.
Mike
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 11:53:48 UTC