- From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:56:14 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, Grady Booch <gbooch@us.ibm.com>
Jeremy,
Hub and spoke could be important - thats my point, otherwise I would not
have made it. It increases the opportunity for unification. Lets take this
offline please...?
Regards
Phil Tetlow
Senior Consultant
IBM Business Consulting Services
Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328
Jeremy Carroll
<jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.
com> To
Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB
27/01/2005 12:28 cc
public-swbp-wg@w3.org,
ewallace@cme.nist.gov, Grady Booch
<gbooch@us.ibm.com>,
Cliff.jones@newcastle.ac.uk
Subject
Re: OMG Ontology Metamodel
Definition Review
My own nervousness was less well-informed.
I believe this document is an important one, and that we should be
encouraging it to completion as quickly as possible.
Hence comments should, in my view:
- help correct the document
- point out important weaknesses
- or be supportive
As far as I could tell, and I am glad that someone better informed about
UML than me tended to agree, the hub-and-spoke comment did not point out
an important weakness, but articulated an alternative design. To fully
address this comment I think would take quite some time, since it's a
few steps backwards before going forwards, and I don't see (any/enough)
benefit for this cost. (All process - no content :( )
Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 17:52:40 UTC