- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:15:28 -0700
- To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- CC: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
While it is true that for some applications it may be useful to minimize the number of triples, i do not think that should be an argument that is used to help choose a modeling scheme in a best practices working note. I think we want to have modeling solutions that we believe represent good modeling choices that capture the representation and do not introduce additional confusion or complication. I am not clear that you could claim that this approach does not create additional maintenance either. While it could be worth adding in the note that there are other ways to model this if for example you are interested in minimizing triples, I would not suggest that in a group note that we include this solution with what might appear to be equal endorsement. deborah Eric Jain wrote: > > Natasha Noy wrote: > >> Actually, I think it is more awkward. Having Simba both as an >> instance and a subclass of Animal is awkward at best. In some, very >> rare, circumstances, you could argue that that's what you want (in >> fact, I've done that myself [1]), but it complicates things >> significantly, and probably shouldn't be done unless you absolutely >> have to. > > > It may complicate things from a theoretical point of view, but I would > argue that it solves the problem with a minimum amount of triples, and > without creating a maintenance problem or loosing expressive power. > > Looks like we are heading for a computer science versa software > engineering discussion :-) > > -- Deborah L. McGuinness Associate Director Knowledge Systems Laboratory Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 (computer fax) 801 705 0941
Received on Monday, 16 August 2004 16:15:37 UTC