Re: [regrep-cc-review] Re: Methodology

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Carl Mattocks wrote:

>OK - for me you have built the case that 'this sc is the best place to 
>  
>
>>define serialization (what  comes back as the result of a registry query
>>    
>>
>to "get()" a CC or BIE)'.
>
This is not all that thought but ....

Would it make sense to define an OWL ontology to represent CCTS 
artifacts such as CC or BIE. This would mean that the serialization 
syntax would be OWL/RDF.

Initially such CCTS artifacts in OWL/RDF syntax would be treated as 
ExtrinsicObjects by the registry.
Later when the registry supports OWL/RDF natively they will add more 
direct inference-based queries.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh