From: Jim Hendler (jhendler@darpa.mil)
Date: 03/22/01
At 7:13 AM -0500 3/22/01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >I agree with Pat's proposal (below) to change the documentation to eliminate >``abstract''. There are no occurences of concrete within the current >files, except in a commented-out paragraph. > > > pat hayes wrote: > > [...] > > > abstract class --> class (or --> DAML class , if the point needs > > > emphasising) > > > abstract object --> object > > > abstract domain --> class domain (or --> DAML class domain) > > > concrete class --> datatype (or --> xmls datatype) > > > concrete object --> datatype value > >The previous version of the documentation heavily used the term >``instance'' for objects. I changed them to object (mostly abstract >object). I'm not recommending changing back to instance. (This comment is >mostly here as a vote to not change back.) > >peter Folks, I'm truly stunned - when I saw Pat's proposal it seemed straightforward, reasonable, and emininently doable. I was therefore sure you all would hate it! Seriously, in the past couple days I've been spending a lot of time talking to the RDF folks and discussing DAML w/them, and I think the new terminology is much more consistent w/the way they use these terms. -JH Dr. James Hendler jhendler@darpa.mil Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST