From: Jim Hendler ([email protected])
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 [email protected]
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