[topicmapmail] RE: back to the lists

Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:23:19 +0100

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--Boundary_(ID_hlzL9WxUByn1fX1DPqtCvg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> Martin Bryan:
> 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.

An example for this is described in the OWL-Guide
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-guide-20021104/ under "Property
Restrictions" (discussing a simple wine ontology). When I read this I had
the impression that this would meet TM requirements.

> ... I don't see this as being helpful in 
> describing all
> of the constraints TMCL is supposed to provide.

I cannot say whether *all* TMCL constraints can be handled by OWL - we
haven't even the requirements ready. 
It was very stimulatiing for me to read the OWL requirements at
http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/.

Thomas Bandholtz

--Boundary_(ID_hlzL9WxUByn1fX1DPqtCvg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [topicmapmail] RE: back to the lists</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

&gt; Martin Bryan:
 &gt; I am surprised that you think that OWL is expressive enough. 
 &gt; I don't see how
 &gt; you could use OWL to say that relationship A must have an X 
 &gt; in role R and a
 &gt; Y in role Q and that no two A relationships with X can have 
 &gt; the same Y.

An example for this is described in the OWL-Guide <A HREF="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-guide-20021104/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-guide-20021104/</A> under &quot;Property Restrictions&quot; (discussing a simple wine ontology). When I read this I had the impression that this would meet TM requirements.

&gt; ... I don't see this as being helpful in 
 &gt; describing all
 &gt; of the constraints TMCL is supposed to provide.

I cannot say whether *all* TMCL constraints can be handled by OWL - we haven't even the requirements ready. 
 It was very stimulatiing for me to read the OWL requirements at <A HREF="http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/</A>.

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thomas Bandholtz</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_hlzL9WxUByn1fX1DPqtCvg)--