| Question asked
|
The end of section 2.1 (under Type 3 OBDBs … The end of section 2.1 (under Type 3 OBDBs) states that "meta-schema may allow ... storage of different ontology models (OWL, DAML+OIL, PLIB, etc.)." Referring to figure 3 (as directed by the author) and to figure 7 (OntoDB, a type 3 OBDB), I find it difficult to perceive how such an approach would model OWL ontologies. In particular, it is unclear to me whether the Class table is able to take into account '''multiple''' ''inheritance of classes'', and furthermore, there seems to be no account for ''subproperties''. The paper focuses on numeric reasoning related to geospatial and temporal applications and doesn't seem to investigate the aforementioned claim. Do you think the meta-schema approach is capable of storing more expressive ontologies (like OWL ontologies)? pressive ontologies (like OWL ontologies)?
|
