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

["Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>]

Creating an Ontology for CCTS Artifacts would be  nice goal that would
incrementally build on the work thus far.
I propose we start with an Owl-lite structure.

<quote who="Farrukh Najmi">
>
>
> 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
>

-- 
Carl Mattocks CEO CHECKMi
Operational Intelligence OEM
-------------------------------
e-Business Agents
Semantically Smart Compendiums
-------------------------------
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com