- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:50:14 +0200
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF4C207E93.0639788D-ONC1256B9E.0052F2A1@diamond.philips.com>
The annotated OWL language description (2 april) contains several options for replacing the uninformative and to many people unclear names PrimitiveClass and DefinedClass. I would like to add one. The main requirement on new names for these primitives seems to be that these names are, perhaps after having been explained once, largely self-explanatory to the largest possible group of people, and that no separate mnenomic is needed. We should preferably not make an assumption about any other field (e.g. mathematics: necessary/ sufficient conditions; or terminology from object-oriented modeling/UML) The following proposal seems to satisfy this requirement: Instead of DefinedClass: ExactClass ( <classID> , <supers>, <slots> ) Instead of PrimitiveClass: ContainedClass ( <classID> , <supers>, <slots> ) That is, a class defined by means of ExactClass is exactly the intersection of the superclasses in its definition and the (classes defined by its) slot constraints. A class defined by means of ContainedClass is contained in the intersection of the superclasses in its definition and the (classes defined by its) slot constraints. The illustration above involves the core version of OWL. Of course, the terminology also applies to the full version. Herman ter Horst Philips Research
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 11:54:09 UTC