This GitHub repository lets you - our users - log and track issues that you find with our standards and other document. Tag the issue with the standard or standards effected; we will assign it to the relevant group(s) within TC 211.
11
stars
0
forks
source link
ISO TC/211 profile of OWL to raise it as an equivalent operational language in ISO TC/211 #465
From report on non-relational database technology:
Beware of the distinction between web ontologies & foundational ontologies; formalise a TC 211 profile of OWL to raise it an equivalent operational language in TC 211. 19150 is not a good standard for developing ontologies because it takes UML as a starting point?????. - Object-oriented language (UML) ISO 19150 - rules for ontologies using OWL, is not a good standard for developing ontologies because it takes UML as a starting point. ISO 19150 ontologies based on TC211 UML application schema are very rarely used by the semantic web community. There are gaps in the current standardisation practice: - Missing spatial data vocabulary - Publishing dynamic and large datasets on the web - Encoding rules from UML to JSON and other - Developing the Spatial Thing as a concept related to Feature(Type).
Consider an ISO TC/211 profile of OWL to raise it as an equivalent operational language in ISO TC/211. In addition to that consider to develop the Spatial Thing as a concept related to Feature type (see also issue #441).
From report on non-relational database technology: Beware of the distinction between web ontologies & foundational ontologies; formalise a TC 211 profile of OWL to raise it an equivalent operational language in TC 211. 19150 is not a good standard for developing ontologies because it takes UML as a starting point?????. - Object-oriented language (UML) ISO 19150 - rules for ontologies using OWL, is not a good standard for developing ontologies because it takes UML as a starting point. ISO 19150 ontologies based on TC211 UML application schema are very rarely used by the semantic web community. There are gaps in the current standardisation practice: - Missing spatial data vocabulary - Publishing dynamic and large datasets on the web - Encoding rules from UML to JSON and other - Developing the Spatial Thing as a concept related to Feature(Type).
Consider an ISO TC/211 profile of OWL to raise it as an equivalent operational language in ISO TC/211. In addition to that consider to develop the Spatial Thing as a concept related to Feature type (see also issue #441).