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

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

Peter

I understand now most of your points and they make sense. I think the
bottom line of that debate is that we had not, to begin with, the same
vision of the target readers of the specification. My view was that we
target more the expert users (taxonomists, librarians, ontologists ...)
who are the most likely to be at least the early adopters. It seems that
you target a wider audience. Certainly we should clarify that, and I
guess it will turn out that you have the support of the TC majority, and
I will surrender.

There has been lately a debate in topicmapmail about TM specifications
(and people) being too technical, with known consequences in terms of
adoption and dissemination. I've been quite puzzled by those debates,
and carefully avoided to step in. But I guess we should not skip that
debate internally.

Thoughts?

_____________________________________

Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant - Knowledge Engineering
www.mondeca.com
_____________________________________

| -----Original Message-----
| From: Peter Flynn [mailto:peter@silmaril.ie]
| Sent: mardi 11 février 2003 00:45
| To: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
| Cc: 'tm-pubsubj'
| 
| 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
| 
| 
| 
| 
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
| To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
| manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>