RE: XG W3pm Scope

On Tuesday, June 3, 2008 4:51pm, "Graves, Henson" <henson.graves@lmco.com> said:

> DL and related tools are evolving (Motik's
> structured objects and integrity checking, for example), and we need to
> keep this in mind.

This brings up an issue. I'm very new to PM, though I think I understand the basic idea. I've been reading about BIM (Building Information Modeling), which is partially related, from the IT perspective, to PM, and I got some new stuff about BIM today from Michel, so I think I'm starting to understand that.

What I'm not clear about, and this is related to Henson's comment above about integrity constraints, is whether the *point* of having ontologies in PM is to use a reasoner (of whatever sort) as a kind of expressive constraint checker, in which case you want something like Motikian (or some alternative) integrity constraint semantics.

That is, as Henson suggests, what you want to *do* in or with an Ontology-Based Management System or in an Ontology-Drive Architecture is also important. If so, we really should gather use cases & requirements, not simply about expressivity in common PM modeling tasks, but also about what those models are intended to support, w/r/t reasoning services.

I think in this XG we should put together a Use Cases & Requirements doc that covers both modeling *and* reasoning services, that is, what sort of computational processes (if any) the modeling should support. Integrity constraint checking may or may not be one such -- it's a commonly requested feature for Pellet -- but we need to figure out where consensus may (or may not) be for both modeling *and* reasoning.

Cheers,
Kendall Clark

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 01:36:20 UTC