Re: LANG: frame paradigm

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"


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:

Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 09:39:26 UTC