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

RE: [OEP] Classes as Values - Abstract

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:55:04 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF05F5D18C@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Natasha Noy" <noy@smi.stanford.edu>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Here is one last suggested revision. If you don't find it suitable, just fiddle some more with it, or go with the current one. I just fiddled with the abstract, nothing else. 

I left out the sentence that said we motivate using classes as values, because it is not really necessary, and I can no longer be bothered...

Mike
====

Replace the current abstract: 
--
This document addresses the issue of using classes as property values in OWL and RDF Schema. It is often convenient to put a class (e.g., Animal) as a property value (e.g., topic or book subject) when building an ontology. While OWL Full and RDF Schema do not put any restriction on using classes as property values, in OWL DL and OWL Lite most properties cannot have classes as their values. We examine representation of this information in OWL and RDF Schema and suggest different ways of capturing this information in OWL DL and OWL Lite. For each approach, we discuss various considerations that the users should keep in mind when choosing the best approach for their purposes. 
--

With

--
This document addresses the issue of using classes as property values in OWL and RDF Schema. It is often convenient to put a class (e.g., Animal) as a property value (e.g., topic or book subject) when building an ontology. We illustrate the direct approach for representing classes as property values in OWL-Full and RDF Schema. We present various alternative mechanisms for representing the required information in OWL DL and OWL Lite, which cannot have classes directly as property values. For each approach, we discuss various considerations that the users should keep in mind when choosing the best approach for their purposes.
--


-----Original Message-----
From: Natasha Noy [mailto:noy@smi.stanford.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:35 AM
To: Uschold, Michael F
Subject: Re: [OEP] Classes as Values - Abstract


Mike,

Please, go ahead and modify the abstract. YOu can do it in the HTML 
file, or simply cut and paste into the email. You have the key until 
late afternoon-early evening today (say, 5pm) -- then I'll go in and 
fix the rest -- contributors, pattern names, etc.

Thanks!

Natasha

On Mar 10, 2005, at 9:42 AM, Uschold, Michael F wrote:

> Natasha,
>
> There is one minor fiddle for me to reword as per this message.
>
> If you point me to the latest draft and give me the 'key' I will
> finish this off and we can get this note out the door.
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natasha Noy [mailto:noy@smi.stanford.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: Uschold, Michael F
> Cc: Christopher Welty; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [OEP] Classes as Values - Abstract
>
>
>>> 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 Thursday, 10 March 2005 23:55:38 UTC

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