Re: [tm-pubsubj] Classes are singular nouns ... at least in ontologies

[Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>]

Bernard Vatant wrote:
> 
> This message is dedicated to Pete :)

Thank you :-)

> Just to make a complete rationale about classes being written with
> singular nouns, and why I don't think it's a detail, and how it
> indirectly meets some other important current lines of thought
> 
> 1. This is the recommended and usual current best practice in
> ontologies. 
> See e.g. the example developed in OWL guide
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-guide-20021104/#SimpleClasses
> See that classes here are named "Winery" "Region" and so on ...

I think we are at cross-purposes here. There is no problem in using the
formal language of logic and programming (with singulars for classes)
*when you are using the formal language of logic and programming*.

My objection is that the Gentle Intro is precisely *not* that forum.
If it is going to be read and understood by the interested non-expert,
we must use plain English, and that includes using the grammar
correctly, *even if this is marginally at variance with expert practice*

Using the formal language of a discipline (called a "jargon") *outside*
the discipline is a common error of technical writers and documenters.
Please let us not fall into that trap.

> 2. Is that only in OWL, RDF and relative Description Logic land? 
> Nope. Just a little story : in Mondeca applications, we used to keep the
> plural for practical internal purposes, as a way to make distinct, e.g.,
> the topic class "Products" 

That is exactly the correct usage when using the term descriptively.
When using it analytically, "the class 'Product'" would be correct
(but the word 'Product' would be expected to be typographically
distinct, eg italics, monospace, quotes..., as in the OWL doc).

> vs the role type "product" in a "production
> association". We hoped that nobody would care about that lexical
> "bricolage". We were wrong. I had several times remarks about it, from
> documentalists and thesaurus experts, that it was a bad practice and
> that we should do otherwise. In French as well as in English, BTW. Those
> people are very picky, and they care about that kind of thing(s).

They are failing to make the same distinction.

> 3. It happens that documentalists, taxonomists, ontologists and the like
> are the first (main, maybe only) target readers and users of our
> specification. 

I am only looking at the Gentle Intro here, which addresses the
non-experts. Documentalists, taxonomists, ontologists and the like
will have no problem with the use of the singular in the more formal
parts of the spec.

> We want those folks to get on board. We've better write
> something in their language rather than in street english. 

Absolutely. But if we fail to explain ourselves to a wider audience,
including -- I hope -- potential investors in the technology, then
we need to express ourselves in good English, not in the Java-esque
syntax of camelCased singular classNames.

> 4. It has been discussed to use "group" or "set" instead. Bad idea.

Yes, very bad idea *in the formal text*. Good idea in the informal
explanation.

> People do not care about identification of groups or sets. 

Wrong. Most people outside the "documentalists, taxonomists, ontologists
and the like" care very deeply: it's the standard set of terms and
paradigms for them. The class-instance paradigm is making headway but
has yet to reach a wider audience.

> They want to
> identify classes and instances. Mainly classes, actually. The
> "class-instance" paradigm is fundamental in ontologies, and ontologies
> are here to stay, making a silent revolution in various industries.

Yes, it's like client-server and many others. A critically useful tool,
but not the only one.

I repeat: if we cannot explain ourselves *comprehensibly* to the world
outside (note those two words: *not* the insider world of ontologies),
then we have already failed.

///Peter