RE: multiple inheritance
Matthew,
Why not use KIF? http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/kif.html
Adam
At 06:58 PM 6/16/2000 +0200, West, Matthew MR SSI-GPEA-UK wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Maybe I am more used to living in an imperfect world.
>
>I would have two responses:
>
>1. Is there another standard I could use instead of XML Schema to meet my
>needs? (the nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
>from) ;-( But seriously standards are a market place and you should vote
>with your feet on standards that are not fit for purpose.
>
>2. If there isn't something better (or XML-Schema is otherwise compelling -
>e.g. someone is paying you to do it) then I would work at a meta-model
>level, so instead of defining an ontology in an XML-Schema, I would create
>an XML-Schema for ontologies that supported multiple inheritance. At that
>level I could bear the single inheritance model, since I have a simple
>purpose.
>
>I quite accept that a single inheritance model for an ontology of any
>complexity is asking for trouble.
>
>Regards
> Matthew
>============================================
>Matthew West
>Operations & Asset Management
>Shell Services International
>H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
>Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
>Exchange e-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
>Compuserve e-mail: Matthew_West@compuserve.com
>http://www.shellservices.com/
>============================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Spottiswoode [mailto:cms@metaset.com]
> > Sent: 16 June 2000 15:32
> > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: multiple inheritance
> >
> >
> >
> > Members of this list who are not on the XML.com list may
> > appreciate being
> > pointed to this paragraph from an article pointed to by the
> > latest number from
> > XML.com. (The article is at
> > http://xml.com/pub/2000/06/xmleurope/schemas.html )
> >
> > The article reports on Henry Thompson, introduced as "an
> > editor of the W3C
> > XML Schemas specification", and is re his address, entitled
> > "Reconstructing
> > DTD Best Practice", at this week's XML Europe 2000 conference
> > in Paris.
> >
> > "Thompson also explained that XML Schemas 1.0 would not
> > include multiple
> > inheritance, as the Working Group is keen to produce a strong
> > design for a
> > single inheritance model first. However, Thompson did not
> > rule out that
> > multiple inheritance could feature in a later version, and
> > that a model similar
> > to Java (single inheritance supplemented by interfaces) could
> > still be
> > considered at that time. The emphasis is clearly on getting
> > the first version of
> > XML Schemas complete."
> >
> > While I myself find it difficult to imagine a congenial
> > conceptual world without
> > multiple inheritance, I do find it interesting to ponder the W3C WG's
> > strategies, where they come from, and what implications such
> > work from
> > such a massively influential stable will have on the
> > practical future of
> > ontologies.
> >
> > A next question might be what features a first-pass
> > single-inheritance
> > ontology should have if it is to grow, in due course, into
> > multiple inheritance,
> > and without enormous inconvenience. (It is reportedly aiming to be
> > "complete", and presumably it aims to be open too.)
> >
> > Christopher.
> >
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571