Re: Enhancing Data Interoperability with Ontologies, Canonical Forms, and Include Files

To be very explicit:
1. You should qualify your statements -- they apply only to OWL ontologies.
2. OWL is *not* a general purpose ontology language.
3. MKR *is* a general purpose ontology language.

However, I must admit that I'm still a little uncomfortable with 2.
It has been suggested to me that actions can be described by
LOTS of reified binary relations.  But I think that *time* variations
are still a problem, as is the lack of *context*.  Ontologies are
like a very limited kind of context, but I don't think they can do
the job.

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Enhancing Data Interoperability with Ontologies, Canonical
Forms, and Include Files


>
> Hi Dick,
>
> "Richard H. McCullough" wrote:
> >
> > The facts are:
> > Transformations are just special cases of actions.
> > Actions are just special cases of properties.
> > Any general purpose ontology must include actions!!!
>
> Can you show me how in *OWL* to represent this relationship:
>
>    "A Length expressed in Kilometers is equivalent to a
>     Length expressed in Miles multiplied by 1.609344"
>
> Unless you know some feature of OWL that I am not aware of then this
> relationship is not expressable.
>
> There may be other ontology languages that can express this.  But not
> RDFS or OWL.  /Roger
>
>

Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 06:39:09 UTC