Re: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class inplace of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode

[ewallace@cme.nist.gov]

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>I share Zachary's concerns about practical effects of basing the whole 
>>registry on OWL.  
>>
>Where do you get the impression that PR2 implies basing the whoile 
>registry on OWL? 

Nothing.  As I thought I made quite clear later in that same email,
I was merely following up on the discussions we had at the last telecon
since Zachary had brought it up.

> It simply says that a Registry needs to allow using of 
>OWL ontology / classes where ClassificationScheme/ClassificationNode are 
>being used currently.

Agreed.

>>It was also not clear to me at the last SCM SC telecon, 
>>what the extent of the proposed use of OWL really was.  All of these things 
>>need more exploration before a commitment to a design decision like this is 
>>made.
>>  
>>
>We are not making any design decsions yet. We are simply brainstorming 
>on what we
>perceive as key requirements for our eventual spec to address.

Right.  I was speaking against the suggestion in Zachary's email that we
should make such a design decision now. Or rather, he seemed to be implying
that we should be making plain the fact that we already had made such a
decision.  I don't believe we have made any such decision nor that we are
yet ready to make such a decision.

>My current thinking is that we may leave ClassificationScheme and 
>ClassificationNode
>around for backward compatibility but deprecate their use. I could be 
>convinced of
>removing them if our final proposal makes them unnecessary (which I 
>think it will).

Hmm.  I was thinking we would keep both, perhaps making the Classification
and Ontology versions of these registry classes into sibling children of new
superclasses.  It is true that OWL could easily support true taxonomies, but
supporting something like the UDEF trees with OWL could be quite challenging.
Not sure if this last bit is a requirement, and I am not nominating it to be
one.

-Evan