From: Neil Goldman (ngoldman@teknowledge.com)
Date: 04/15/02
I hope Tim is right -- that it will be rare for anyone to view ontologies directly in terms of the primitives defined in the standard. And that makes me wonder why there is any reason for the standard to bother including names for idioms -- such as UniqueProperty or UnambiguousProperty -- regardless of how common they may be. I'd much rather see these terms eliminated than renamed. Neil Goldman Tel: (310)578-5350 x204 Teknowledge Corporation Fax: (310)578-5710 Suite 231 4640 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > -----Original Message----- > From: tim finin [mailto:finin@cs.umbc.edu] > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 11:17 AM > To: karger@theory.lcs.mit.edu > Cc: daml-all@daml.org > Subject: Re: ASSERTION, QUESTION, SUGGESTION - final draft > > > "David R. Karger" wrote: > > None of the other names was any more natural to the man on the > > street. Since they are going to have to learn new vocabulary, we > > might as well use the previously defined terms. > > I hope the man in the street never sees any raw OWL or DAML anymore > than he should have to look at HTML or postscript. The person who > might have to look at the OWL description generated by an application, > tool or syntactically sugared surface language will be (IMHO) someone > like a software engineer, a system administrator or a DBA. They > probably won't be a person with an interest in KR, with advanced > degrees or who has ever worked in an R&D environment. > > I like Pat's notion of describing constraints on properties by > describing how they are used, but isn't this the domain of an > intuitive, high-level surface language (N3++?). We still need to > decide on what this compiles into and how to express it. That lower > level language needn't be optimized for human understandibility, > though it should not be obscure. > > The kind of people who may have to look at low level OWL are much more > likely to be familiar with descriptions from information systems > (e.g., one to many) than with the language of mathematical functions. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST