Hello Mathew and Chris,
I think that was a very interesting discussion! We do have some examples from traditional modeling world. ( class room kind of examples..)
For example, A Supervisor is an employee himself, and he has staff ( group of employees ) working for him! Which creates a one to many relationship !
A meetup of Meetups has similar modeling notations..
About your previous slides.. and the exmaples of Table.
At a conceptual level ( Ontology) I would just have a superclass, a class of "Furniture"
with subclass as Tables, Chairs, upholstry and the rest in the list.. and relationships..
As one can see, Class "Furniture" can be generic and standardazised with a set of generic subclasses and generic relationhips.. if one does not include the exceptions, at this level, I would find that acceptable. it can be done at a detail level.. as long as superclass covers all.. However, if one finds the exceptions or the special types ear;y, then can include as notes with explanation, it would help at a detail level.
At a detail design level - which is logical and physical, I would include further details and exceptional or special types etc.. But at a detail level of design, if this step is overlooked, it causes either design flaws or difficult coding to cover it up. ( its just bad design..)
Note: I am sending this a comments only.
--- On Wed, 10/28/09, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology modules and namespaces
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 4:27 AM