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

Re: [OEP] naming CaV patterns [was: new Editor's draft of classes as values available]

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 23:53:11 +0100
Message-ID: <422F7E57.6000907@cs.vu.nl>
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



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).

I concur.
Guus

> 
> 
> -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" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
> Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> 
> 03/07/2005 09:09 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"Natasha Noy" <noy@smi.stanford.edu>, "swbp" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
> cc
> 	Christopher Welty/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> Subject
> 	RE: [OEP] new Editor's draft of classes as 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 598 7739/7718
E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 22:53:23 UTC

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