Browse wiki

From Odp

Jump to: navigation, search
Community:RinkeHoekstra about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption
CreationDate 25 October 2009  +
HasReviewScore -1 -reject  +
HasReviewSummary The reason I propose to reject this patter The reason I propose to reject this pattern is that it is decidedly silly. The authors say that "The definition of the Hybrid Class is the union (OR) of the definitions of the disjoint classes." The reason is that the two classes A and B are subsumed by their union A V B. What the pattern does is that we leave implicit what the '''proper''' type of the individual is: we simply do not know whether the individual is in A or B. However, any individual instance of A V B will always be either in A or in B, but '''never''' in both (since this is what disjointness specifies). The example therefore does not applies. If Animal_Plant is defined as the union of Animal and Plant (both disjoint) then there still exist no Animal_Plant instances... and this is what the pattern supposedly tries to solve. hat the pattern supposedly tries to solve.
LastModifiedDate 25 October 2009  +
Modification dateThis property is a special property in this wiki. 25 October 2009 02:02:00  +
ReviewAboutSubmissionThis property is a special property in this wiki. Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption +
ReviewAboutVersion 5,867  +
SubmittedBy RinkeHoekstra +
Categories OpenReview +
hide properties that link here 
  No properties link to this page.
 

 

Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.
Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers