- From: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:27:28 +0000
- To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- CC: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, Natasha Noy <noy@smi.stanford.edu>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <422EB36F.B3152F4F@cs.man.ac.uk>
All
Given the number of notes, naming histories, and the fact that we will never come up with names that
are intuitive to all sectors of the audience, would it be sensible to try to move towards a
supplementary FAQ style index, e.g.
Q: I need to refer to the classes in an ontology to describe the content of documents, books, films,
etc. What should I look at?
A: See Classes as Values (URL).
If we made providing one-to-three such questions something that each person did when they drafted a
note and then discussed them briefly, I think we could do this with a low effort on everybody's
part. Experience with other things suggests that such notes, particularly when used in this way
just as an index/pointers are less contentious than names and allow several questions to point to
the same resource. They would also help focus us on what the notes are for.
Regards
Alan
Given the
Christopher Welty wrote:
>
> I liked the idea of naming the patterns until I saw the suggested names. I suggest dropping this
> issue, I think it will take too long to come up with good names - I disagree with most of these
> (some are confusing and/or ambiguous).
>
>
> -Chris
>
> Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
> IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY 10532 USA
> Voice: +1 914.784.7055, IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
> Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/
>
>
> "Uschold, Michael F"
"Natasha Noy" <noy@smi.stanford.edu>, "swbp"
<michael.f.uschold@boeing.com> To <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
cc Christopher Welty/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
03/07/2005 09:09 PM RE: [OEP] new Editor's draft of classes as
Subject
values available
>
>
>
>
> Natasha,
>
> Thanks for having a go at naming the approaches. Tough job. I looked at
> my original review notes which focused on WHAT EXACTLY IS THE VALUE OF
> WHAT PROPERTY. This is the essential thing that distinguishes each
> approach. So, my names suggest answers to that question for each.
>
> And the NEW SUGGESTION IS:
> 1. classes as values [the direct approach]
> 2. class instances as values
> 3. parallel classes instances as values
> 4. implicit class instances as values
> 5. classes as annotation property values
>
> I think these are all accurate, getting to the heart of the matter, and
> are reasonably short.
> What do you think?
>
> Your suggestions:
>
> 1. Classes directly as property values
> 2. Parallel set of individuals for property values
> 3. Parallel hierarchy of individuals for property values
> 4. Classes with value restrictions as types
> 5. Classes as values for annotation properties
>
> My notes...
>
> o 1: the actual class, e.g. Lion
> the relationship of this value to the class Lion is identity (it IS the
> class)
> o 2: an instance (called LionSubject) of the class: Lion denoting
> the subject of Lions.
> The relationship of this value to the class, Lion is: rdf:Type (or
> instance)
> o 3: an instance (called LionSubject) of the class: Subject
> denoting the subject of Lions.
> LionSubject is related to the class Lion via an rdf:seeAlso link.
> o 4: an [implicit] unidentified instance of the class Lion.
> The relationship of this [nonexistent implicit] value to the class Lion
> is rdf:type
> o 5: the actual class, e.g. Lion
> the relationship of this value to the class Lion is identity (it IS the
> class)
> NB: this is identical to approach 1. The difference is that the property
> is an annotation property.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natasha Noy [mailto:noy@smi.stanford.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 4:48 PM
> To: swbp
> Subject: [OEP] new Editor's draft of classes as values available
>
>
>
> The new version of the Editor's draft is available at the same location
>
> [1] (also accessible from OEP page [2]).
>
> I think we have converged on all the issues except for the abstract
> [3]. Chris, Mike, for the moment I conveniently assumed that you will
> agree with my last message [3], but we can still of course change it.
>
> I went through the document and fixed most typos, references, etc. When
>
> doing that I've also fixed a couple of extra issues that Mike brought
> up in his review and that I somehow missed (e.g., moving the SKOS
> discussion to a slightly different location).
>
> Mike, I also edited your re-wording of approach 4 a bit, but I tried
> not to change the meaning or the order of sentences in your text to
> make it even more clear (I think). If you are going to re-read anything
>
> in the document besides the abstract, this is the section to read.
>
> Besides agreeing on the abstract, there is only one more thing
> remaining: shorter titles for the patterns, if we can come up with
> them. I've tried to come up with something, but I am not at all crazy
> about the result. It may not be that easy to do. Any thoughts on the
> list below?
>
> 1. Classes directly as property values
> 2. Parallel set of individuals for property values
> 3. Parallel hierarchy of individuals for property values
> 4. Classes with value restrictions as types
> 5. Classes as values for annotation properties
>
> Other than that, I think we are done...
>
> Natasha
>
> [1]
> http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/ClassesAsValues/ClassesAsValues
> -2nd-WD.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0053.html
>
>
>
>
--
Alan L Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL: +44-161-275-6188/6149/7183
FAX: +44-161-275-6236/6204
Room: 2.88a, Kilburn Building
email: rector@cs.man.ac.uk
web: www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.opengalen.org
www.clinical-escience.org
www.co-ode.org
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 08:28:31 UTC