ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML

To: "'David Price'" <dprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: chris.paredis@xxxxxxxxxx, Ron_C_Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 'Chris Partridge' <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion' <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bock, Conrad'" <conrad.bock@xxxxxxxx>, 'Victor Agroskin' <vic5784@xxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:59:26 -0000
Message-id: <005901ccf885$12172fb0$36458f10$@west@informationjunction.co.uk>

Dear David,

Thanks. That sounds a good development.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

Cheers,
David


-- 
Managing Director and Consultant
TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336-283-0606
 
 

_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>