Re: [ALL] editors draft of simple part-whole note ready for review

• From: Natasha Noy <noy@smi.stanford.edu>
• Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:45:20 -0700
• To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
• Cc: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <6f0188c8ff1aee1066484beb403aae56@smi.stanford.edu>

> Christopher Welty wrote:
>
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/
>> Is ready for review.  Guus and Bill had volunteered to review it.
>
> I see Bill and Natasha have already sent extensive reviews :-).
>
> I just started mine and for the moment have one thing to add to the 
> list of comments:
>
> At the end of Pattern 2  the document says:
>
> [[
> If all are defined in this way we get a hierarchy from the classifier:
>
> CarPart
>   Motor
>     MotorPart
>         Headlight
>             HeadlightPart
>                   Headlight_bulb
>   ...
> ]]
>
> This seems the type of mixed (subclass, part-of) hierarchy that you 
> argue against in the next section: motors are car parts, but 
> headlights are no motors. How can one get this hierarchy from the 
> classifier?

I suspect there was some problem with indentation and the intended 
hierarchy is something like (let's see if my indentation comes out ok):

CarPart
      Motor
      MotorPart
           Headlight
           HeadlightPart
                Headlight_bulb
                Headlight_bulbPart

By the way, the note doesn't have the full OWL code for any of the 
examples -- it probably should have it.

Natasha

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 17:45:41 UTC