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

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 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.

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

Well, I should add that RELAX-NG does not actually define any types of
its own. So the alternatives are

 a) an open type system,

 b) the XML Schema, part 2 one.

I read you as advocating a).
 
| 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.

Yeah. It's worth noting that part of OWL uses DL, and that there was a
huge fight about this in the OWL committee, which led to the division
of OWL into the three levels found there now. 

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >