- From: NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:52:36 +0200
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BBBE5BAA3B351C488C415EA662EA88400B7129@ftrdmel2.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Hello, Congratulations, I think that this document contains, at least for me, quite the type of informations i would like to find in a BPG : clear, very easy to read and neutral towards the choice of one approach instead of an other. Two little points : 1) Approach 3 : You write : "We can take the second option in Approach 2" The figure seems to be relative to the first option ? am i wrong ? 2) Approach 1 : The first consideration is : "The resulting ontology is in OWL Full" I think that what could be vvery interesting would be to give a little and very simple example of what does this categorization concretely imply; indeed it's not always clear to clearly understand the direct consequences of such a fact. Perhaps that the fact to describe a blocking situation in the context of this use case due to the fact that we are in OWL FULL, could help people to better realize what to be in OWL FULL really means. My request comes from the fact that when i tried to find such a situation/example it was more difficult than i thought at first Thanks Best regards MArco NANNI -----Message d'origine----- De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Natasha Noy Envoye : mercredi 14 avril 2004 18:28 A : public-swbp-wg@w3.org Objet : [OEP] "Classes as values" first draft Folks, At the last telecon, I took an action to produce a draft note on dealing with the issue of classes as property values. My first pass at it is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Apr/att-0061/Classes AsValues.html This is a strawman, so please feel free to and do poke holes in it! I think the goal here is really two-fold: (1) to give some suggestions on how to deal with the specific issue (classes as values) and (2) to figure out what the general format and tone of such notes and patterns should be. (The second one being arguably more important at this point) I have shamelessly lifted most of the ideas from the discussion on the mailing list a couple of weeks ago. So, thanks to everyone who participated in that discussion. I would also like to thank Oscar for his comments on an earlier draft. Natasha
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 06:52:48 UTC