- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 11 Sep 2002 13:21:45 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 11:50, Ian Horrocks wrote: > On September 9, Dan Connolly writes: > > On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 14:38, Ian Horrocks wrote: [...] > > > I find myself less and less satisfied with "oneOf" as the name given > > > to extensionally defined classes. [...] > > I don't see how you can use a class name name like EnumeratedClass > > to relate a class to its members. How would this work > > in the exchange syntax? > > OK - you could call it enumerationOf then. Yes, that's an improvement. > This seems more consistent > and readable. To me, "oneOf" makes it sound as though the class being > defined consists of just one of the enumerated elements when in fact > it consists of all of them. E.g., someValuesFrom oneOf (x y z) might be > taken to mean that all instances of the class must be related to the > same object. > > But it's not a big deal. Yes, it's not clear that the improvement justifies the cost of the change... raising an issue and all that... Hmm... we already have a related issue... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I2.4-Enumerated-Classes but we closed it. The name is ironic, no? Meanwhile, the ink isn't dry on the tests... Jim H. has an action to make them. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0276.html Given that we're still working out some of the details of this issue, I wouldn't mind changing the name while we're at it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:21:45 UTC