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

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Farrukh,

I don't believe you received a direct reply on this idea, but I believe
that it is worth exploring if we (using the term "we" to mean the
Registry TC in general) begin defining a serialization format for CC's.

Joe 

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php.