RE: multiple inheritance
Dear Adam,
Or EXPRESS (ISO10303-11) or UML, or Conceptual Graphs, or EXIST, or ...
The main reality here is that the world is being reinvented in XML. I don't
suggest this is necessarily the best thing to happen, since it gives an
excellent opportunity to repeat all the mistakes we have made over the last
(say) 30 years. In ISO TC184/SC4 we are devoting quite some energy to
jumping on the XML bandwagon without throwing the baby out with the bath
water (oh I do like a mixed metaphor).
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: apease [mailto:apease@teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 16 June 2000 18:13
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GPEA-UK; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
>
>