Re: Interim results of action to edit classes as values note

Brian,

Thank you for doing a pass over the document -- indeed, it is much 
clearer what you had in mind and puts a slightly different slant on the 
document. I am perfectly comfortable with and in fact very much like 
the way you included RDFS in it. I've re-worked the preamble, basically 
taking most of your text. In fact, I've also added some text (partly 
based on Alan's message [1]) to discuss the whole sw scenario, whether 
or not you own the terminology, etc. Some of that has made it into 
considerations, in particular for approach 2. Thank you for pushing the 
note along those lines!

There are two things I am much less comfortable with in your approach: 
(1) your example and (2) the recommendation of a particular approach 
for converting to OWL DL.

On the example, while I am not attached to the subjects example and 
would be happy to change it, I think your particular example creates 
more confusion (at least to me) than it resolves. The fact that you 
need to go to some length to explain the domain of your example is not 
a very good sign (and even then I had some question about what is a 
ticket). Besides, in my experience, many people have trouble with 
figuring out whether a particular printer model (HP LaserJet 8100) is a 
class or an instance, and somehow fewer have trouble with "Lenny the 
Lion". It seems that introducing this extra level of complexity here 
doesn't seem to help.

However, any other suggestions on this front are welcome.

More important, I am really uncomfortable with recommending one 
particular approach. You chose approach 3 and, for example, Alan, is a 
staunch proponent of 4, and there was a message just this week on the 
list [2] and another message from someone else after an earlier draft 
saying that after considering all the  trade-offs, they chose 2, and 
that I had some private email indicating that in some cases, [5] would 
be most practical. All these are sure signs that we are not yet in the 
position to choose just one solution as a recommended one. Not for 
classes as values, at least. I am not saying that this is the case for 
every pattern, but for the moment I believe it is certainly the case 
for this one. Perhaps, as we get more experience on how things are 
actually used on the SW, we could rule out some of the approaches 
later.

Furthermore, if I am a web designer and decide to follow your 
recommendation, what do I do if there are no tools to do the conversion 
for me (which is the case today)? Your text is based on the assumption 
that the tools are there or are going to be there right away. I am not 
sure this is the case.

Thus, I've listed providing a specific recommendation it as an open 
issue and let's see what others think.

That said, I think you are making a very good point that providing a 
more specific guidance for *tool developers* in terms of how to do a 
conversion from one approach (in particular, 1) to another, is 
important. I think there are in fact two audiences for the patterns: 
(1) ontology designers who use the available tools to model their 
ontologies and (2) tool developers who will (hopefully) build tools to 
convert between patterns seamlessly and allow the most natural approach 
to modeling for the first group while doing the conversion behind the 
scenes. So, I am wondering if it would be worthwhile having an appendix 
aimed specifically at tool developers that gives more precise guidance 
on the conversion? On the other hand, it seems that a tool developer 
should be able to figure it out from the rest of the note? It seems 
that the conversion itself is straightforward.

Natasha

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004May/0124.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Jun/0000.html

On May 31, 2004, at 9:18 AM, McBride, Brian wrote:

> I've had a go at expressing the ideas I had about a different spin for 
> this
> document.  The words aren't flowing very freely, and the graphics 
> certainly
> are not, but I hope there is enough here for folks to see where I'm 
> headed
> and come to a view as to whether it is worthwhile.
>
> I've taken a few liberties with the text, for which I hope Natasha will
> forgive me.  I don't feel strongly about these, they are just 
> illustrative.
>
> However, it is worth reading the abstract and the introduction to get 
> an
> idea of how I'm suggesting reframing the purpose of the document.
>
> Thinking of the task in this way, led me to the the key claim I am 
> making,
> that we can automatically translate between the natural approach using
> classes as values and the (I think) preferred approach for OWL DL.
>
> Thus I am suggesting:
>
> 1) We should define properties that describe the relationship between 
> the
> RDFS and DL approaches.
>
> 2) We should recommend an approach, so that folks who just want a quick
> answer to "How should I do ..." don't have to work too hard
>
> 3) More controversially, we should recommend in general, the classes as
> values approach on the grounds of simplicity, suggesting automatic
> transformation to a form suitable for processing by a DL reasoner if 
> that is
> required.
>
> I am filling sandbags as you read this.
>
> When unzipped, you want the *-bwm-v5 version of the document.
>
> Brian
>
> <ClassesAsValues.zip>


	
Natasha

Received on Friday, 4 June 2004 02:41:21 UTC