- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:25:29 +0100
- To: <conrad.bock@nist.gov>, "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'Elisa F. Kendall'" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
- Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, I agree with Conrad here. I have had many quite positive comments from users and, in particular, from developers of OWL tools about the style in which the OWL 2 specification has been presented. The object model in the specification can be almost directly cast into an OWL 2 API; furthermore, aspects of the specification such as various consistency criteria (i.e., the general restrictions on axioms) can be defined in a much easier and more precise way in terms of an object model. Therefore, I really believe that we should keep the diagrams. I also agree that the diagrams themselves should be written in the correct UML. The present errors were unintended; however, I haven't fixed them yet because I wanted to get a chance to talk to UML experts. In particular, I was hoping that either Elisa or Conrad would be present at the last F2F meeting, so that we could have a brief chat. I have a few technical questions about UML that I would like to ask before I go and modify the diagrams. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Conrad Bock > Sent: 16 April 2008 20:01 > To: 'Alan Ruttenberg'; 'Elisa F. Kendall' > Cc: 'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'; public-owl-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Proposal to close ISSUE-82: UML diagrams > > > Alan, > > > Speaking as someone who is not UML savvy, I can say that they also > > create confusion if you don't use UML. Frankly, unless there is > > compelling evidence that these are useful to segment of our users, I > > would consider dropping them altogether. > > That would be a separate issue. Since UML is so widely understood in > the software community, and appears even in the ISO Common Logic spec, > I'd say the compelling evidence should be needed for dropping them, not > for keeping them. > > Conrad >
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 19:27:48 UTC