Re: java annotations & the semantic web

I have posted this now on my Sun blog at:

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bblfish/

with some of improvements suggested by your feedback.  I'll keep  
working on this.


     Henry Story


On 25 Aug 2005, at 11:24, Kirkham, Pete (UK) wrote:

>
> In terms of representing intensional classes, yes. But such  
> mechanisms do not easily allow extensional classes, which means you  
> can't use them for classification of data, inference, etc, and so  
> you can end up with a system based on the least common denominator  
> of the two.
>
>
>
>>     - functional: if A rel B and A rel C the A == C
>>
>>
> Typo?
>
>
>
>> Using URIs for beans is a lot better than using table names. URIs  
>> are *Universal*.
>>
>>
>
> Most OO design tools have used some form of UUID for ages. Flexible  
> ORM schemas use a lookup layer.
>
> A lot of what went into EJB3 is based on improving productivity for  
> sort lifecycle and lifetime systems - if your business rules are  
> changing weekly, you don't need an ID that will outlast the sun.
>
>
>
>
>> The above now maps very easily into UML class diagrams (which are  
>> just another notation for OWL)
>>
>>
>
> Be very careful that the implementation specific semantics are the  
> same.
>
>
>
>
>> In the above I have only annotated the setter method. One could also
>>
>>
>
>
>
>> annotate the getter, adder, getAll methods or even a field.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>> This ends up creating too many places for annotations
>> I think. Is there a standard solution for this?
>>
>>
>
>
> For classes, annotating the field and auto-generating the accessor  
> methods is fairly standard.
>
> For interfaces, fields are static so your example probably doesn't  
> mean quite what you intend it to, and has the side-effect of  
> exposing superfulous static fields in the interface.
>
> I'd probably generate the interface from the OWL or from the class  
> rather than trying to go the other way round.
>
>
>
>> it seems clear to me that setters and getters don't give us quite
>>
>>
>
> all that we want. It would be really nice if java beans also had  
> addXXX
>
> and getAllXXX.
>
> The beans specification uses array returns for multidimensional  
> values, though this is somewhat clunky.
>
> The JMI (Java Metamdata Interface) codifies a richer set of  
> accessors for reflection, though it is out of data with respect to  
> the UML standard it is based on, nor likely to get updated soon due  
> to the fragmentation of the UML community.  The eclipse EMF project  
> is more current, and has some interesting modelling and code- 
> generation tools, but not standardized with Sun, and based on 1.4  
> so is annotation free.
>
>
> Pete
>

Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 02:50:18 UTC