- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:35:48 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 10:46, Guus Schreiber wrote: > > I think we should consider the UML class model also as background > > reference. > > UML is handy in that it's widely understood, > but it's got a lot of closed-world assumptions in it. > > e.g. in UML, if you say the Person class > has a gender M/F property and a sibling > property, then somebody else can't > derive a brother property and a sister > property, because the list of properties > in a UML class is sorta closed. > > So it's great to compare OWL with UML, but let's > also be careful to contrast it. Most frame systems have the same "closed" property. I think this is not the issue here. As I understand it, Frank and Ian want to use frame idiom as a presentation format, which is translated behind the scenes into DL, so that users can actually still add stuff to the "frame" definitions. Guus -- A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15 NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793 Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 09:39:26 UTC