Re: OWL DB, OWL UML, etc.

At 9:12 -0700 5/13/04, Bob MacGregor wrote:
>Its not at all clear to me that OWL subsets are adequate to capture
>the primitives needed for something like database integration.
>In our own work, we find it essential to be able to define compound
>keys.   We also find it essential to be able to define compositions
>of (range-restricted) properties.  I'm not sure if the DB integration
>folks need the latter or not, but I would be very surprised if they
>don't need the former.  Both of these constructs lie outside of
>OWL Full, as I interpret it.
>
>Cheers, Bob

Umm, Bob, I guess I'm confused -- the idea I put forth is to figure 
out how OWL extends the relational calculus --  Let's not confuse 
OWL's ability to model what is in databases (as you discuss) with 
OWL's ability to say things that are not expressible in the database 
schemas themselves (as it is quite an expressive language and can say 
many things way beyond the relation calculus) -- it's not that I 
disagree with what you say above (I don't), it's just that I don't 
see how it relates to what I was asking...
  -JH


-- 
Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)

Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 18:26:43 UTC