W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2005

FW: [OEP] Classes as Values - A detailed review

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:08:46 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF0583C317@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <welty@us.ibm.com>
Alan,

Here is a revised draft with a few changes, noted below. If you have a
few minutes (really, only a few) could you read over appraoch 4? I have
made major changes in how the approach is described. 

I sent it to Natasha, but failed to include the list.

Thanks,
Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Uschold, Michael F 
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 8:26 PM
To: 'Natasha Noy'
Cc: Chris Welty (welty@us.ibm.com)
Subject: RE: [OEP] Classes as Values - A detailed review


Here is my new draft. I did three things: 

I fiddled with the abstract a bit because I did not not like calling
classes as vales an ontological pattern. I thought the patterns were the
approaches, we have 5 patterns in this note. By analogy, I would not
call 'part-whole' or n-ary relations ontological pattern either.  Do we
define 'ontological pattern' anywhere? What does it mean? Maybe it is
fine as it is, and I just don't know what you mean by ontological
pattern. If so, then does that mean the approaches are NOT patterns? Or
a different kind of pattern? Which kind?

I added a paragraph on issues and considerations.

I redid approach 4. See what you think.  I think that the last sentence,
about inference does not fit there any more. I was not sure where it
should go. Does it apply to the case of the variant, or the original? Or
both simultaneously? Please clarify. Maybe it could be merged into the
considerations?

I did not yet get to a conclusion section.

Mike


Received on Friday, 4 March 2005 15:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC