On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Aidan Hogan <aidan.hogan@deri.org> wrote: > > +1 ... and yep, I still maintain my original point that it is *not* > helpful to talk about OWL subsumption using phrases like inheritance. :) > > Speaking from the sidelines, but with a lot of experience in dealing with people from multiple domains and many perspectives. It may not be helpful to talk about it in the specs. But anytime you see that there is confusion over an topic from a segment of people that that is interested in and has a possible use for what you are producing/teaching. Then you would benefit from talking about it in clarifying, informal documents; in a context that they are familiar with using. In this case, 'inheritance' is a word used and understood by computer scientists. If you use that as a starting point and then say what is different in 'OWL subsumption'; you will be a lot more successful in making your points. HTH, Tim -- MLHIM VIP Signup: http://goo.gl/22B0U ============================================ Timothy Cook, MSc +55 21 94711995 MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2 Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5 Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 15:41:36 UTC