[tmcl-wg] Any TMCL dependencies: OWL Maybe?

[Robert Barta]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:56:26PM +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Mary Nishikawa
> | 
> | Will the TMCL depend on XML Schema Part 2, or OWL or something else?
> 
> XML Schema, part 2 specifies the system for primitive types in XML
> Schema. To me it seems that we can either do like RELAX-NG and create
> an open type system where applications can choose what set of types
> they want to use, or we can create a closed one like the XML Schema
> one.

I would prefer RELAX. It is far simpler and clearer. There might also
be a political issue.

> This suggests to me that TMCL must be a constraint language completely
> independent of RDFS and OWL. We may, however, be able to reuse the
> more ontological part of OWL unchanged, should we want to do so. The
> question, I guess, is whether we want to.

I am asking myself for quite a while what language (expressitivity) is
actually necessary to do ontological things. A friend of mine (logician)
pointed me to DL (description logic) as a formal foundation:

   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~franconi/dl/course/

Might look like boring reading but it is interesting to see how
entity-relationship models, UML, ... can be formalized.

I see some significance for the ontological aspect of TMCL here.

\rho