W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Enhancing object-oriented programming with OWL

From: Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstrong@gmx.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:10:52 -0400
Message-ID: <502FB07C.80202@gmx.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi Adam,

What I have in mind is fitting my software together with Sesame or Jena 
and just having the back-end store sets of objects instead of whole 
triples and see how that works.  For benchmarks, I think it won't be 
very difficult to get SPARQL running on my software, since I have 
methods to compute all the triplestore indexes (permutations of 
subject-predicate-object) from all of main memory, but SPARQL isn't 
running yet.

I just meant that my understanding was that OWL can express anything 
about data OOP can express, and more, but I'm sure Alan is right that 
there is more than abstract classes. By "disparity" I meant that even if 
there are differences between OOP and OWL of which I'm not aware, I 
still don't see a problem with adding OWL to OOP.

We would need to modify a compiler to determine to which classes an 
object belongs so we would know what methods can be used with it.  There 
could be methods in defined classes.

Tim


On 08/18/2012 07:35 AM, adasal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 August 2012 23:08, Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstrong@gmx.com 
> <mailto:tim.armstrong@gmx.com>> wrote:
>
>     Certainly, object-oriented classes and OWL classes are different,
>     but my understanding is that the main difference is just that OWL
>     is strictly better.
>
>
> What do you mean by 'strictly', 'better' and 'strictly better'?
>
>      I'm not aware of anything OOP can do that OWL cannot do, but OWL
>     can do a lot more.
>
>
> What do you mean by 'do'? Do you mean it is more expressive such that 
> it is possible to define in OWL what cannot be defined in OOP? Isn't 
> that axiomatic in that they are different languages with different 
> semantics?
> What you are really saying is that you want to extend the syntax of 
> OOP in a form you think is convenient to use such that it will be able 
> to express OWL semantics.
>
>     Well, abstract classes, but that's all I can think of.
>
> So is this relevant?
>
>     Or if there is still going to be a disparity,
>
> What does this mean?
>
>     we should still just be able to add all the OWL class constructs
>     and everything else about OWL and let people use them in OOP.
>
> You mean with your annotations - but the issue really is whether this 
> is more convenient than existing approaches.
>
>     We'd need to get into a compiler to do some of it, but I think it
>     would be worth it.
>
> Why would it be necessary to get into the compiler, what are you 
> talking about?
> Do you mean to pick up annotations - that is not necessary as new 
> annotations can be defined as things stand - or to optimise such as in 
> the way you mention where reasoning is selective. I can't see that 
> this needs access to the compiler so much as an understanding of the 
> logic of whether and when selective reasoning is a proper optimisation.
>
> You would have to show that your approach is better than the existing 
> approaches to optimisation that sit on top of triple and quad stores.
> Can you do this?
>
> Adam
>
Received on Saturday, 18 August 2012 15:11:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:39 UTC