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

Re: [SE] Suggestion of new note

From: Holger Knublauch <holgi@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:13:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4342B81F.8040003@stanford.edu>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Hi Mike,

thanks again for your comments.  Sorry I could not respond earlier - I 
am currently in the (time consuming) process of looking for a new job :)

Comments below.

Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> Holger,
> 1. This document is not listed as a deliverable in the TF Web page, is
> that intentional?

I will send the current draft to Jeff soon - it should be listed.

> 2. A few more quick thoughts on the table comparing OBJECT-ORIENTED and
> OWL.
> This is wordy and hard to follow:
> Instances can only take values for the properties attached to its type.
> Values must be of the correct types defined for the properties.  	
> Any instance can take arbitrary values for any property, but this may
> affect what reasoners can infer about their types.

I have cleaned this up, following your suggestion in the follow up email.

> This suggests that OWL is at a disadvantage, it can't do privacy.
> You need to emphazize the OWL Advantage that it makes it possible to
> link ontologies from all over the place, and privacy can probably be
> added, so is not a fundamental difference.
> Classes can encapsulate their members to private access.  	
> All parts of an OWL/RDF file are public and can be linked to from
> anywhere else.

I wouldn't read the current statement as a negative statement.  I 
mention that all parts "can be linked to", which sounds like an 
additional feature to me.  However, I don't really see how privacy can 
be added in OWL.  Neither is better or worse, but both approaches 
fulfill their design goals.

> Also, the long list is hard to make sense of, there are nice categories
> that would be good to use to organize the items. Even if there is just
> one entry in the category, it highlihts the topic making it easier to
> understand:
> * Classes and Instances/Individuals
> * Properties, Attributes and Values
> * Errors and Consistency checking
> * Maturity 
> * Worldliness (open vs. closed)        [not serious about the category
> name :-)

This is a great idea and I have done some partitioning for the next draft.
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 17:14:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:13 UTC