- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:33:02 -0600
- To: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>I just read the new draft (Feb 20), as I had the previous
>one (Feb 7). I'm generally happy with it, but wanted to
>raise a couple concerns before the deadline:
>
>1) The "Explicit ontology extension" section hints that
>ontologies are our primary building blocks rather than
>classes and properties. I think part of the beauty of
>RDF/DAML+OIL is the ability to use or extend any class or
>property without much concern for the ontology boundaries
>("ontologies" are currently just a loose collection of
>classes and properties sharing a common URI sans fragment).
>I would hate to see this change.
Good point, I agree
>
>2) I fear that the current "Classes as instances"
>description won't convey sufficient understanding to an
>outside reader (a Class is an instance of class Class after
>all). Perhaps we need to include the A320 aircraft type
>example: we want to be able to specify certain properties
>(maxSpeed, passengerSeats, range, etc.) common to all A320's
>without having to enumerate them for each instance.
Or some such example, good idea. Might there be an example involving
types of red apes, also?
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 21:33:06 UTC