[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
23667: RE: [MUD-Dev] OpenCyc, design implications of ontological systems ?
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Robert Zubek <rob@cs.northwestern.edu>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:08:52 -0500
Organization: Kanga.Nu
From: Sean Kelly [mailto:sean@ffwd.cx]
> So a Mammal is an instance of a BiologicalSpecies, but you
> obviously can't create an instance of type Mammal (in OO terms).
> The simplest means of representation would be to have all internal
> nodes be abstract classes, and only the actually instantiable
> classes be concrete (pretty standard OO stuff). All instances of
> a parent could be found by an in-order traversal of the
> inheritance heirarchy.
So you mean that every node would convey
generalization/specialization through the object hierarchy, like
before, but now also carry an internal collection of 'instances' and
'parents' - and only let the leaf nodes be actual OO instances of
those nodes?
This might work, although I wonder what would happen if one
attempted to then instantiate off a leaf node? In a compiled
language this isn't much of a worry, though - the pre-processor can
always just recompute the hierarchy...
Rob
--
Robert Zubek
rob@cs.northwestern.edu
http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~rob
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev