|
John,
Thank you for your answer on the
relative expressive powers of OWL and EXPRESS.
Matthew, Ian
I was not actually proposing to
write EXPRESS in OWL, although I believe there is a tool by the name of Reeper
that does the translation for you, but I would agree it's not a sensible thing
to do.
The point was rather that, if in
the semantic web, one came across something that said it was a AP214:Part which
was a subtype of a STEP:Product which is a subtype of EXPRESS:Entity, which is a
subtype of OLW:thing, would current approaches to the semantic web interpret it
correctly? The reason for asking this question is that, in my experience, let a
computer programmer loose with some constuct which is intended to have
a conventional interpretation and they will ignore the convention, and
manipulated according to its computational properties. My understanding is that
"semantics" in "semantic web" is concerned with the semantics of the logical
operators, rather than the semantics of the terms, such as instantiate from
OWL:thing. Hence, if one were to interpret OWL:thing as simply the modelling
construct EXPRESS:Entity, would subsequent subtyping to STEPProduct or
STEP:Version make further interpetation impossible? Or would this provide
another form of Upper Ontology?
Sean Barker, Bristol
|