- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:59:21 +0100
- To: Agis Papantoniou <apapant@medialab.ntua.gr>
- CC: public-gld-wg@w3.org
On 25/10/12 11:49, Agis Papantoniou wrote: > On 25 October 2012 10:52, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com > <mailto:dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 24/10/12 01:16, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > 13. What's an “abstract data type” anyway? Can we have a > reference? > > > I offer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Abstract_data_type > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_data_type> > > > Hm... The various definitions all talk either about behaviour or > about programming languages, neither of which seems appropriate > here. > > > Agreed, these are not abstract data types in the computer science > sense. I seem to recall mentioning this before. > > > Thought a bit upon that, would a rephrasing like the following, along > with the reference, be better? > > "The Registered Organization Vocabulary makes use of the following data > types, all of which are modeled and defined in the ADMS specification > [ADMS], on a higher abstraction level [1], for domain independent > re-usability" While that's less misleading, are they really "on a higher abstraction level"? Suggest just stopping before the first ",". If there is some notion of abstraction going on here then it should perhaps be described in the ADMS spec not this one. Dave
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 10:59:51 UTC