HG: that seems ok if you really have a formal semantics, and you can
really
> specify the semantics of the ontological commitments in a precise way,
> otherwise you just have a terminology, not an ontology.
MW: The most formal representation of ISO 15926 are the OWL translations
from EXPRESS. However, OWL is not really satisfactory for our needs. It
suffers from the same problems as UML with regard to classification.
DP: Actually, given the popularity of OWL the POSC/CAESAR Association is working on starting a project on this front:
Project announcement with invitation to participate
This is to announce that PCA, DNV and EPIM have joined forces to develop OWL2 representations of ISO 15926-2. Interested are invited to participate in this effort. Project description and invitation is available from this link
https://www.posccaesar.org/svn/pub/ISO15926asOWL/20110923_ISO15926_OWL2_Native_V2.pdf
I guess these people are a different set wrt MW comment 'OWL is not really satisfactory for our needs'. Note however that the word 'representations' wrt OWL is plural.
MW: I understand that OWL 2 still has the same single level of classification that UML and EXPRESS have in principle. So you either have to do what we did, as you say, define your own language using another – and loose native support, or make some compromise. Neither of which is ideal, hence not really satisfactory. That does not mean such attempts are without value.
Regards
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.