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

Re: oneOf (2.4)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 11 Sep 2002 13:21:45 -0500
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1031768505.2992.3565.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 11:50, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> On September 9, Dan Connolly writes:
> > On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 14:38, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> > > I find myself less and less satisfied with "oneOf" as the name given
> > > to extensionally defined classes.
> > I don't see how you can use a class name name like EnumeratedClass
> > to relate a class to its members. How would this work
> > in the exchange syntax?
> OK - you could call it enumerationOf then.

Yes, that's an improvement.

> This seems more consistent
> and readable. To me, "oneOf" makes it sound as though the class being
> defined consists of just one of the enumerated elements when in fact
> it consists of all of them. E.g., someValuesFrom oneOf (x y z) might be
> taken to mean that all instances of the class must be related to the
> same object.
> But it's not a big deal.

Yes, it's not clear that the improvement justifies the cost
of the change... raising an issue and all that...

Hmm... we already have a related issue...


but we closed it. The name is ironic, no?

Meanwhile, the ink isn't dry on the tests... Jim H. has
an action to make them.

Given that we're still working out some of the details of
this issue, I wouldn't mind changing the name while we're at it.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:21:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC