RE: [SE] Suggestion of new note

Holger,

1. This document is not listed as a deliverable in the TF Web page, is
that intentional?

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.
--

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.
--

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 :-)

I'm doing this for a introduction talk, this is what I have so far: the
grayed text is the one from above that I could not understand well
enough to simplify (thus prompting this message).



>  >  -----Original Message-----
>  >  From: Holger Knublauch [mailto:holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU]
>  >  Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:24 PM
>  >  To: Uschold, Michael F
>  >  Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>  >  Subject: Re: [SE] Suggestion of new note
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  Mike,
>  >  
>  >  a thousand thanks for these very helpful and constructive 
>  comments!
>  >  
>  >  The new draft is available from
>  >  
>  >  http://www.knublauch.com/oop/2005/09/23
>  >  
>  >  I fully agree with almost all your comments and tried to
>  >  integrate them 
>  >  as good as possible - my apologies where I failed to 
>  address them. 
>  >  Below are some comments on your comments.
>  >  
>  >  Holger
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>  >  > The note should have a better introduction. It starts by
>  >  diving right 
>  >  > in, w/o any context setting. Say much earlier what is the 
>  >  > storyline/contents/overview of the paper as well as outline the 
>  >  > specific objectives. The latter can be accomplished by the 
>  >  sentence 
>  >  > used in the email announcing this draft (see below).
>  >  > 
>  >  > Here is some sample text that attempts to describe the 
>  >  overall story 
>  >  > and motivates the note:
>  >  > 
>  >  > ==
>  >  > Great progress has been made in the use of models in software 
>  >  > engineering, the benefits are (blah blah blah).  Recent 
>  MDA-based 
>  >  > software development tools move this forward 
>  >  significantly, addressing 
>  >  > some of the common issued in software engineering such 
>  as: models 
>  >  > being use only at the beginning and getting out of date as code 
>  >  > develops. However, there are still challenges. <name them, like 
>  >  > interoperability>
>  >  
>  >  I believe we should be careful not to limit our discussion to MDA.
>  >  Software development reality also contains agile 
>  approaches, and our 
>  >  goal should be to attract real-world programmers.  Some 
>  programmers 
>  >  don't believe in MDA.  MDA is fine for some things but has also 
>  >  limitations.  What we suggest with OWL is a kind of agile 
>  MDA that 
>  >  should suit many people.  In a sense, software 
>  development with OWL 
>  >  takes MDA to extremes, in so far that design models are even 
>  >  used at run 
>  >  time.
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  > It seems you should make a distinction between object-oriented
>  >  > software languages like Java, C++, etc. and 
>  >  object-oriented modeling 
>  >  > languages like UML [and frame-based representation 
>  languages that 
>  >  > pre-dated OWL].
>  >  
>  >  I did not understand the context of this comment.  Could you
>  >  be a bit 
>  >  more specific and tell me where this distinction is 
>  needed?  Thanks.
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  > Instead of a laundry list of added expressivity, motivate
>  >  the need for them with some examples. This brings it to 
>  >  life.   Start with an example with some depth and detail to 
>  >  it, and show in that single example how the various features 
>  >  of the language are used and how they help. It is one thing 
>  >  to merely be ABLE to express something, it is another for 
>  >  that to add value somehow.  
>  >  
>  >  The old draft was clumsy and incomplete with respect to explaining
>  >  restrictions.  I have totally restructurd this part, and 
>  >  added a Venn 
>  >  diagram which should make things clearer and motivate reasoning.
>  >  
>  >  
>