[topicmapmail] RE: back to the lists

[Martin Bryan]

Bernard

> I second strongly this approach. Developing a specific language and
> syntax for TMCL seems to me keeping in following the dead-end path of
> the "standalone standard". And the more I look at it, the more it seems
> that expressivity of OWL is flexible enough to express a wide variety of
> TM constraints. I will expand on that ASAP on a specific thread about it
> on TMCL list.

I am surprised that you think that OWL is expressive enough. I don't see how
you could use OWL to say that relationship A must have an X in role R and a
Y in role Q and that no two A relationships with X can have the same Y.
While I can see a good case for defining all the relevant PSIs to describe
topic map constructs in in OWL, as this gives you the structure you need to
adequately scope PSIs, I don't see this as being helpful in describing all
of the constraints TMCL is supposed to provide.

Martin Bryan