Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Irene Polikoff wrote: > Yes, modeling wife as a subclass of female may not be the right thing to > do. Another option in either RDF or OWL is for wife or husband to be > modeled as a property of male/female. It could then be said (using, for > example, domain - range restrictions of RDF) that wife's must be females > and husband's must be males. That's a lesson we've learned the hard way in the Object-Oriented programming world over the past decade or two. Deep semantic subclassing is almost always a bad idea -- it makes programs hard to maintain and update, and I'll be that it does the same thing to RDF-based taxonomies. As far as I've seen, most object-oriented programmers have moved from heavy subclassing to light subclassing with more aggregation. I wonder what implications that has for how the Semantic Web people work. All the best, David
|
