As an important part of the car wash system, John and Jack perform certain manual tasks required for washing a car properly:
• Jack and John are instances of Actor
• WashWindows is an instance of Task and is done by John
• PushWashButton is an instance of Task and is done by Jack
Seems to me from the brief description that WashWidows and PushWashButton are supposed to be classes whose instances are actual atomic tasks — John's actual window-washings and Jack's actual wash-button-pushings. If so, then it seems to me that the little ontology fragment above is wrong and that, instead of the second and third lines, they should have:
• WashWindows is a subclass of Task
• Instances of WashWindows are done by John
• PushWashButton is a subclass of Task
• Instances of PushWashButton are done by Jack
Or something like that.
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
| bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd J Schneider
| Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2010 00:53
| To: [ontolog-forum]
| Subject: Re: [-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
| Ontology Technical Standard
| To all concerned or interested the SOA ontology put forth by the Open Group is
| rubbish for many reasons. I provided several pages of comments and
| justifications to an earlier draft and almost all of my comments were not
| However, there is some value in this work. It can be used as an example of
| errors that are commonly made.
| Finally, I'd like to commend Chris Harding in his efforts to reconcile very
| divergent views and opinions.