[tmcl-wg] Consistency of TMCL Schemas ?

[Bernard Vatant]

Dmitry, Lars Marius

I'm happy to see that, after some clarifications basically there could be
an agreement on a roadmap about OWL vs TMCL. See my previous answer.

Now with my WebOnt member hat on, and looking a little further. I think it
would be very interesting to push any draft about it to WebOnt. People
there (e.g. Eric Miller, Dan Connolly, Jim Hendler etc ...) would be very
happy to see that, and certainly would provide useful feedback on it,
including checking that the interpretation made in TMCL of OWL constructs
is not a mis-interpretation from their viewpoint. I think even a
preliminary declaration of intention of some level of interoperability of
TMCL with OWL would be a good move. I'm pretty sure we could have such a
thing somehow approved/endorsed by both sides (ISO and W3C) in the long
run.

Of course I volunteer to play the go-between role. There is a first
interesting deadline that could be met, which is the W3C Plenary in Cannes
the first week of March, including a WebOnt F2F. If I had something to
present there, even in very preliminary form, it would be great.

I'm looking forward to hearing opinion of the editors about it. It's clear
I won't engage in anything that would not be conformant to the ISO process.
So it would be good to have also the opinion of SC34 chair about it.

Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering
Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : tmcl-wg-admin@isotopicmaps.org
> [mailto:tmcl-wg-admin@isotopicmaps.org]De la part de Dmitry
> Envoyé : mercredi 7 janvier 2004 05:59
> À : tmcl-wg@isotopicmaps.org
> Objet : Re: [tmcl-wg] Consistency of TMCL Schemas ?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lars Marius Garshol"
> To: <tmcl-wg@isotopicmaps.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [tmcl-wg] Consistency of TMCL Schemas ?
>
> > I think the following might be the best solution:
> >
> >  - create a TMCL that handles constraints on topic maps, kind of like
> >    RDFS and constraint parts of OWL, and
> >
> >  - reuse the ontology parts of OWL that make sense in topic maps as a
> >    separate specification.
> >
> > The reuse might take the form of expressing OWL in topic maps pretty
> > much the way an OWL schema would look if converted to topic maps using
> > the Ontopia RDF->TM mapping vocabulary, or it might be reengineered
> > somewhat (new URIs, for example), but include a simple and clear
> > description of how to map RDF OWL to TM OWL.
> >
> > My mind isn't really made up on any of this.
>
> If we have general mapping defined between OWL and TMCL (+ may be some
> annotations)   we can have "on the fly" or "virtual" mapping.
>
> So we can "include" and "commit to" OWL ontologies (or more
> precisely TMCL
> view on OWL ontologies). And if we have a concept of "partial type
> descriptions" we can adjust OWL definitions.
>
> Dmitry
>
> _______________________________________________
> tmcl-wg mailing list
> tmcl-wg@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/tmcl-wg
>