- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:17:51 +0100
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Bernard Vatant wrote: > > Mike > > Just a remark about your use of "sets" in the second slide > > "OWL: classes are sets of individuals" > > ... > > Beyond vocabulary, it's unclear to me what kind of opposition you want to capture in > defining OO classes as types vs OWL classes as sets. Could you expand on this point? Again, this goes back to the comparison table from the W3C draft, and I may comment on that. The opposition is not really strict, but was more meant to help OO developers understand the concept behind OWL and DLs. In a sense, OO classes also describe sets, but the term "set" usually rings the bell of Venn Diagrams, and this is exactly the metaphor which people should have in mind for OWL. OO classes are often just implementation artifacts, convenient to wrap things together that are related. If this distinction is too blurred or unhelpful for the purpose of the document, I'd be happy to remove/reword it. Holger
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 09:18:08 UTC