W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2006

[SE] Re: Unacknowledged contributions

From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:08:03 +0000
To: "John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
Cc: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com, pan@cs.man.ac.uk, michael.f.uschold@boeing.com, christopher.welty@us.ibm.com, adityak@wam.umd.edu, rector@cs.man.ac.uk, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, dlm@ksl.stanford.edu, dwood@tucanatech.com, Grady Booch <gbooch@us.ibm.com>, cliff.jones@newcastle.ac.uk, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDBD9797F.AAFE5D86-ON802570EB.005DC377-802570EB.005E1FDE@uk.ibm.com>


Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Ill mention your kind
contribution at todays SE telecon and make sure that the list of
acknowledgements is duly changed on the note.

Best Regards,

Philip Tetlow
Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect)
IBM Business Consulting Services

Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton,
Leeds, LS15 8ZB
Current Assignment:
Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328
Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com

             "John McClure"                                                
             ove.com>                                                   To 
                                       "Holger Knublauch"                  
             03/01/2006 16:49          <holgi@stanford.edu>                
                                       Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB,           
                                       Unacknowledged contributions        

Hi Holger,
I am wondering whether my contributions to
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODSD/ are going to be
recognized. As
you noted below, my suggestions were good, and were indeed incorporated in
least one place in the document (I checked).

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Holger Knublauch
>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:58 AM
>To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [SE] Suggestion of new note
>Hi John,
>thanks a lot for your comments - I will try to address them where
>appropriate.  Responses below.
>John McClure wrote:
>> A few scattered thoughts....
>> Perhaps under the title "Worldliness" (!):
>> 1. OWL ontologies define simultaneously an external XML representation
>> resources that can be exchanged via text messages, files, or columns in
>> database -- OO implies (proprietary) binary protocols for object
>persistence to
>> a binary file or an object database.
>I don't think OO necessarily emplies binary formats.  There are many XML
>data binding schema for Java out there, for example.  But you are right
>that one of the advantages of OWL/RDF is that developers get the
>standard XML syntax (with parsers etc) for free.  This has already been
>pointed out in the note: "RDF and OWL objects have a standard
>serialization based on XML, with unique URIs for each resource inside
>the file."  Please let me know if you still don't see this point
>adequatly addressed.
>> 2. OWL/RDF defines conventions for naming and referencing objects;
>OO does not
>> address such issues at all. OWL thus distinguishes between 'first-class'
>> 'anonymous' resources, while for OO, all objects are anonymous.
>This is a good point and I have added a corresponding row to the table.
>  As far as I know, the only "standardized" way of addressing a certain
>instance in OO would be using a kind of a path expression, perhaps in
>OCL.  But the fact that OO systems are usually not internet aware and
>closed (as you point out) explains why this hasn't been a focus of OO
>language designers.
>> 3. OWL defines a root instance class -- Thing -- while OO advocates
>can still be
>> heard to discuss whether a 'sky-level' class should exist or not
>(maybe that was
>> settled, and I just missed it?).
>That is true, but at least in Java such a top-level java.lang.Object
>also exists.  Anyway, perhaps you could clarify why this is an issue
>worth pointing out - is there an important argument in favor of a common
>root class?
>> 4. OWL schemas are open -- anyone can make statements about
>another's schema or
>> any (named) part of that schema.
>I think this is already addressed in the table "All parts of an OWL/RDF
>file are public and can be linked to from anywhere else."
>> I think it's important to communicate the THEME that "OWL is
>Internet-ready OO,
>> addressing certain issues that OO does not or cannot" rather than
>the theme that
>> "OWL is great and OO is deficient" -- a turnoff for sure for certain
>We will discuss this in our task force's next telecon.  You are right
>that we shouldn't put off OO developers.  Their languages were designed
>with different goals in mind.  I need to walk through the article to see
>where we give a wrong impression to the OO folks.
>> Being "Internet-ready" means providing solutions for issues that
>simply did not
>> apply to local and closed binary stovepipes. People like and easily
grasp the
>> notion of being "Internet-ready"... Show historical perspective by
>tracing the
>> development of and problems with developing wire protocols for
>binary objects --
>> that is, CORBA and the IDL, which was but a standardized OLE (remember
>> days?) ...
>I would be pleased to add such a paragraph on the evolution of Corba
>etc.  I am unfortunately not an expert in this area.  So I would welcome
>contributions from others.
>> I suggest a section about the smilarities between OO and OWL,
>primarily focusing
>> on the notion that BOTH result in an INFORMATION SCHEMA. So, a section
>> "Designing Ontologies vs Designing Object Class Hierarchies" would
>be amazingly
>> eye-catching and which could be an opportunity to hark some best
>practices for
>> OWL schema development but perhaps more importantly, would be the place
>> discuss the degree to which an OO schema can be drawn directly from an
>> schema and vice-versa.
>One of our design goals of this note (which probably isn't documented
>anywhere) is to keep the paper *short*.  While I fully agree that these
>aspect would be great to include, we may end up writing a book, which is
>beyond the goals of our group.  Having said this, I would welcome
>contributions from others to add such content in.
>> I also suggest that it be prominently said that OWL (schemas and
>data) files are
>> normally processed by an OO-based system, ie fully highlighting the fact
>> OWL is not an application language, while OO is, to a degree. This
>is necessary
>> I think because the AUDIENCE for this note would be systems architects
>> development folks; one area these folks most care about is
>interfacing OWL files
>> to their installed base of OO applications and application-building
>tools, so it
>> would be on-point to address how an OWL schema can relate to an OO
schema. In
>> other words, it would be good to explain how OO remains, indeed, a
>key part of
>> the solution stack for development organizations, with OWL now in
>the picture.
>Absolutely, this is one of the items that I will try to strengthen in
>future versions.  In fact the embedding of OWL/RDF into OO systems
>should be one of the outcomes of the (yet incomplete) section 4 of the
>note ("Programming with RDF Schema and OWL").
>> Finally, I think that a discussion about the impact of OWL on
>> querying is quite important, that is, contrast object databases to
>> databases and contrast the query languages that are being used/developed
>> each.
>The note mentions at various places that RDF/OWL models supported by
>reasoners can be used as a rich query engine.  Again, if we want to dig
>deeper into this comparison, I may need to forward to other, more
>knowledgeable members of the community.
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:08:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:16 UTC