There is an interesting article here:

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/owl-restrictions/

That discusses the differences between OWL and UML.

One of the features of OWL that I like is the notion of a necessary and sufficient properties but alas this is lacking in UML. Sufficient conditions allow you to determine if an instance is a member of a class when it in not explicitly stated. You can therefore receive and object and work out what it is according to an ontology of your choice - which seems pretty useful to me. It is a mechanism, I believed, could enable us to integrate a simple core ontology with more complex specialist ontologies that some network participants may choose to use. It is not available in UML but could be used to reason about a UML ontology expressed in OWL or RDFS.

OWL doesn't do qualified cardinality restrictions as well as UML - but there are work rounds and proposals and I am not sure how important this is.

There is also a good quote in the article on data modeling versus building ontologies:

"A data model is a model of the information in some restricted well-delimited application domain, whereas an ontology is intended to provide a set of shared concepts for multiple users and applications. To put it simply: data models live in a relatively small closed world; ontologies are meant for an open, distributed world (hence their importance for the Web)."

I think we are sometime confusing the two in our discussions.

Bottom line is:
The answer never includes a single TLA. <- apart from this answer!

My personal feeling is that anything that is defined centrally by TDWG should use the lowest common denominator of features anyhow.

As usual I am grateful for you comments/thoughts.

Roger






-- 

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 http://www.tdwg.org
 roger@tdwg.org
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------