- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:38:53 -0700
- To: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Quick revision, in think I figured out what the 2nd point means, and I added a third. Is this right? Properties, Attributes and Values OO: Properties attached to single class; inherited to its subclasses. Instances can have values only for attached properties. Values must be correctly typed. Range constraints used for type checking Ont: Properties stand alone. Attached to multiple classes via domain constraints and inheritance Individuals can have arbitrary values for any property Range constraints used for type inference and type checking NB I added the last one, you hint at type inference, but don't come out and say it. A very important difference. One can conclude the type of an individual from its place in a relationship instance. MIke > > -----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 being use only at the beginning and getting out of date as code 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. > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2005 17:44:37 UTC