Thanks. That sounds a good development.
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
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.
From: David Price [mailto:dprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 March 2012 12:52
To: Matthew West
Cc: 'henson graves'; 'Anatoly Levenchuk'; 'Bock, Conrad'; chris.paredis@xxxxxxxxxx; 'Fredrick A Steiner'; 'Victor Agroskin'; Ron_C_Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'David Leal'; 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'; 'Chris Partridge'
Subject: Re: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
On 02/03/12 12:28, Matthew West wrote:
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.
Hi Matthew - I think you have a small understanding. OWL 2 has two interpretations : Direct (i.e. DL) and RDF-based (more like FOL) and so you don't have to stick with the DL limitations for 15926 as OWL. That's why there will likely be at least two representations in the PCA project ... one or more wearing the DL straightjacket to support reasoning, and one unencumbered by DL to support data integration.
Managing Director and Consultant
TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336-283-0606