Sean,
I should have added one more comment ...
Many of the EXPRESS constraints that you cannot write as OWL, you can
write as SPIN/SPARQL. So, for the use case of EXPRESS that is the
level of validation of an 'exchange file' against a 'schema' there are
very few, if any, cases where Semantic Web technologies can't do what
SC4 standards do. So, I'd suggest not limiting your considerations to
the OWL language in isolation.
Cheers,
David
On 17/10/10 12:17, sean barker wrote:
Apologies for asking another question before I have finished responding to the last, but a question arose at the last STEP meeting which has some tricky implications.
The statement was made that anything that could be written in EXPRESS could be written in OWL. However, some of the constructs in EXPRESS, particularly those concerning the cardinality and structure of relationships are not directly obviously expressible in OWL, such as the distinction between a bag and a set. However, it should be possible to create a first order interpretation of OWL such that an EXPRESS relationship is a subtype of 'thing', and the relationship constraints are then OWL properties. EXPRESS Entity and Type also become subtypes of 'thing'
This then allows one to construct a second order interpretation by suptyping Entity, Relationship and Type as STEP generic entities, such as Product, Version, View, Property, Property-Representation, Representation-Presentation etc. That is, EXPRESS entities provide an upper level ontology for STEP in OWL.
One can then create a third order interpretation, as is done in the STEP Application Protocols, in which the STEP generic entities are interpreted in the context of a business process, so that Product is either a product (AP 203) a part (AP 214) or a technical data package (AP 232).
Two questions arise. Firstly, one could also describe other modelling languages such as UML and IDEF1X as first order interpretations of OWL (in the sense above) (and even of OWL itself). Could one then compare the expressive power of such formalisation by creating a lattice of modelling languages? (This would also expose ambiguities in the languages).
Secondly, would the second and third order interpretations be compatible with anybody else's use of OWL? For example, whether a particular (EXPRESS) property is a property of a product is contingent on the Version (an implied temporal commitment) and the View.
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Principal Consultant
TopQuadrant, Inc.
US Phone +1 336-283-0606
UK Mobile +44 7788 561308
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|