W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: LANG: frame paradigm

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:35:48 +0100
Message-ID: <3C9206C4.53AA7AFF@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 10:46, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> > I think we should consider the UML class model also as background
> > reference.
> 
> UML is handy in that it's widely understood,
> but it's got a lot of closed-world assumptions in it.
> 
> e.g. in UML, if you say the Person class
> has a gender M/F property and a sibling
> property, then somebody else can't
> derive a brother property and a sister
> property, because the list of properties
> in a UML class is sorta closed.
> 
> So it's great to compare OWL with UML, but let's
> also be careful to contrast it.

Most frame systems have the same "closed" property. I think this is not
the issue here. As I understand it, Frank and Ian want to use frame
idiom as a presentation format, which is translated behind the scenes
into DL, so that users can actually still add stuff to the "frame"
definitions. 

Guus


-- 
A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15
NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793 
Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 09:39:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT