- From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:11:50 -0400
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Guus, I didn't see the discussion about primitive classes on this list, however based on my current understanding the notion is meaningless. When you say, "OWL will have primitive classes", what are you talking about? What is a primitive class? -Chris Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr. Hawthorne, NY 10532 USA Voice: +1 914.784.7055, IBM T/L: 863.7055 Fax: +1 914.784.6078, Email: welty@us.ibm.com Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl> Sent by: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org 05/23/2002 09:39 AM To: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: More on a UML based presentation syntax for OWL > Primitive class note > > UML classes are primitiveClasses. After all the discussion regarding > primitive and defined classes on the webont list, I am unsure that a > notion of primitive class will exist at all in OWL. This seems like > it could be a problem for a UML presentation syntax. At a minimum, > the issue will need to be clearly identified and explained for users > of the UML presentation syntax. OWL will have primitive classes. As UML "class" stands for a primitive class we should just call them "class" in OWL as well. Defined classes could be out of scope for the UML presentation syntax (I included an example in my note, but it has uses a self defined stereotype, of which the semantics is not defined by UML).
Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 16:12:26 UTC