What I miss is a definition of the semantics of these patterns.
The names, like IndirectPropertyOfClassifiedContentOfPartInAssembly, are meaningless to me.

Victor, In response to your second posting: To me there seem not to be any reason why you should model a MultidimensionalObject and its classifying ClassOfMultidimensionalObject in various ways. I have preached this gospel since February 2011, as you can find at the bottom of the frontpage of http:/...

Victor, Please explain in more details. What you are showing looks like a template definition, but my example shows an instance, declaration of a particular list with particular points as members. MSP8 is a particular metric space point with 3 specific coordinate values like <1.0, 2.0, 1.0>. What yo...

Victor, Apart from the fact that it is not well-formed RDF or OWL, I would ask you: would it become different when you replaced MultidimensionalObject with any other string? The minimum code for your example seems to me the following: <owl:Class rdf:about="PL1_Point_List"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&t...

This is a very simplistic example. The reality is that I don’t know how many components will be in a segment ahead of time. I only know there will be 1 to n. This is an example as you gave. Your P&ID software can count n. It is no problem to generate specializations of this template for as many pre...

This topic starts with an unfinished discussion that popped up during a totally different discussion. Please continue it here. ======================================================================== KEITH WILLSHAW wrote on 2013-12-03: This does not appear to provide any way forward with the REAL ho...

There is one thing clear: if you define domain and range, that can be very counterproductive. RDF software will conclude that whenever the defined property is used, then its subject and object ARE BY DEFINITION of the type defined for domain and range. So it is the reverse of what we hoped for: inpu...

Please find attached the Terms of Reference (TOR) for ISO 15926 part 9, version 1.0.

Good idea! At least we may avoid the problem reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

Whois.com tells me that ISO is the Registrant. W3C tells us that ontologies must be updated in versions, so not one bit at a time. That means that, whoever controls those versions, must have full access rights. I think that T25/WG3 must supervise that process and organize the party doing the work an...