Re: further de-abstraction details

From: Jim Hendler (
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.)

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 

Dr. James Hendler
Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO	703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr.		703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST