[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]
Of course an improved UDEF that is focused on specific task deliverables - such as identifying alternate or related spare parts - would not be a bad outcome here. I think we are all learning - and so having the registry deliver specific concrete value(s) with UDEF explicitly is not a bad design goal. We can worry about a perfect 100% solution once we've managed to get a useful 20% working first, eh?! DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> To: <carlmattocks@checkmi.com> Cc: <regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF] > > > "Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com> wrote: > > >This is interesting. I want to now more.. > > > >Zach: > > > >Please expand on the notion of 'UDEF semantic identifiers'. > > > >Evan: > > > >Please elaborate on 'lattices of these relationships '. > > > > I meant networks rather than strict trees. A simple example network > is a class with multiple inheritance. > > There are also horizontal relationships like > synonyms and properties. Think about a design model of a racecar which > describes different component systems. All of these components have > a partOf relation to the car. Something like a transmission often > plays at least two different roles in a hierarchy of component systems > in a racecar. It is partOf the drivetrain and may be partOf the load > bearing structural system. Twisting all these properties and > relationships into a strict hierarchy leads to awkward models such as > the UDEF Object tree. > > I didn't mean to imply that supporting lattices was unusual for modeling > languages. It isn't. I was arguing that such expressiveness is necessary > for useful semantic models. > > >Everyone : > > > >Please consider if the Semantic Web could leverage "concepts ... denoted > >by the paths from these nodes to the root rather than the node itself" > > To a certain extent they already do. I was trying to simplify a finer > distinction. The path back to the root through subtype relations in an > RDFS or OWL model of course has implications on a class and instances > (individuals) of that class. Just the implications you would expect if > you have programmed in an Object Orient programming language. If > Racecar is a subtypeOf Car is a subtypeOf Vehicle, then any Racecar > instance is also a Car and a Vehicle instance and inherits the > characteristics of those supertypes. > > By constrast, the relations in the UDEF Object tree do not have any > explicitly defined implications. It's only when you have followed the > path that you might be able to infer what the relations might have been > along each connection in the path. This makes the tree hard to navigate > when looking for a specific concept. It also can lead to related or > similar concepts being located quite far apart in the tree. > > -Evan >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]