Re: [OEP] - N-ary Relations Note comments

Mike,

Thank you very much for your very detailed and helpful comments! We  
tried to address most of them (I think). The new Editors draft is  
accessible from the OEP page [1]

> I could not find any reason for whether I should choose Pattern 1  
> over Pattern 2, in terms of really practical consequences. The only  
> one seemed to be that it may be intuitively easier to understand.  
> This is important, but much weaker than other consequences we have  
> discussed in other notes.

As agreed at the OEP telecon, we merged the two patterns into 1,  
keeping the distinction as different use cases. This still allows  
users to match the use case to their particular circumstances, while  
not getting us mired in the discussion of when to choose one over the  
other.

> ABSTRACT:
> Below is a suggested rewording to focus on a requirement and how to  
> meet it, and to avoid general abstractions that may be hard to  
> grasp at the outset.

Re-worded, taking into account your suggestions (but didn't do  
exactly as you did).

> I was surprised that you did not use the canonical example of where  
> you need an nary relation: between. It is another example of point  
> 3 of how the use cases evolve.

This is a good point. However, mentioning it without describing how  
to represent it may be confusing, and at this point, I don't feel  
like changing the examples unless absolutely necessary (too much work :)

> The term "instance of the relation" should be defined in a  
> [nascent] glossary.

do we have the glossary?

> In: ['A', 'B', and 'C'] the quotes around b are not uniform.

boy, you looked carefully!

> CONSIDERATIONS when introducing a new class for a relation:
>
> These seem to me more 'facts of interest' rather than practical  
> considerations that actually have consequences.

They are things to keep in mind that may have practical consequences,  
depending on what you are doing. I think calling them Considerations  
is fairly accurate. Do you have a better word for it? I don't  
particularly like the idea of having a section entitled "Facts of  
interest"


> The discussion on unintended models is too terse. Also, it does not  
> seem to be the same kind of 'unintended models' that I'm familiar  
> with.

>
> It seems an odd example, why on earth would one assert the same  
> triple over and over???

we are in the SW realm -- someone may assert it without being aware  
that someone else already has.

> Notes:  most of these have useful important germane points. I  
> suggest putting them back in the text, if you can.

Yes, but I think they would really interrupt the flow too much...
>
> "ref to be added" occurs twice, don't forget.

these are not written yet. Replaced with "to be written"

I omitted comments on changes that I took more or less in their  
entirety.

Natasha

[1] http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n- 
aryRelations-2nd-WD.html

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 16:57:33 UTC