- From: Natasha Noy <noy@smi.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:50:47 -0800
- To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Cc: "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
>> Neither of us feel that strongly about having this in the abstract, >> however we can't figure out why you think the document doesn't do >> this. It presents one use case in detail, under the section titled >> "USE CASE", which is then addressed in all the examples, and in >> addition there is a section "Other use case scenarios" which mentions >> other possible use cases, all in the context of motivating why you are >> doing this. >> >> If you agree, maybe a slight re-wording would be acceptable, but if >> this will generate prolonged debate it's not worth it and you can >> remove it. > > Hmm... I still feel that the note doesn't try to motivate the use of > classes as values. In fact, it almost does the opposite: it shows how > you can represent the same (or very similar) information _without_ > using classes as values. > > [MFU] Ah, Now I see. Yes, strictly speaking you are right. The wording > needs to changed to reflect the following (which I think we an agree > on, never mind the words). What this note is REALLY about is what to > do when you want to model something, for which representing classes as > values is the most obvious, direct and natural thing to do. You can > either represent classes as values directly, (case 1), or you can do > various other things. Insofar as option one is obvious and > straightforward, the real purpose of the note is, as you say, how to > get the effect you want by NOT representing classes [directly] as > values. > > If have any ideas on how to reword this, have a go, or else I will be > happy to. Just give me the latest version to start with. > --- Mike, you are welcome to have a go at it. Before you do there, read the current version of the abstract since it has been reworded after all the discussions. I think it says something close to that already. Natasha
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 21:50:51 UTC