>> I completely agree with you. I cannot imagine a modern knowledge >> based app that would not *intensively* be based on an ontology >> description. Do you know about Python-Seth to parse OWL files >> (http://seth-scripting.sourceforge.net/)? It seems to be the >> same thing you're working on. > >Not quite. I see that Python-Seth depends on Java (and even JPype, >which I believe is not supported any more -- although I did like the >concept of it!). > >My code is pure Python and depends only on rdflib >(<http://pypi.python.org/pypi/rdflib/2.4.0>). >
'pure python' sounds good to my ears. Although one might consider Python as a 'glue' language, I'm not a fan of the JPype/Jython technology. I had a look to the JSDAI.net website and tried to do something within Jython. Failed. It would make me so happy if a guy could have the good idea (and time) to port such a work to a pure Python framework! >> Such a knowledge framework could be achieved with pythonOCC; >> your work could also, I think, easily be merged. > >Or at least be a closely-coordinated "sibling" project. :) For sure. Let's think about that. >> One solution could be to build a kind of 'super-object' >> that would embeds a geometrical/topological description >> (pythonOCC) and a pointer to the related ontology (for instance >> a UID or an URI to an ontology SOA based server). This last >> point is closely related to my research work and the specialization >> of the STEP AP239 (or ISO 15926) generic data model. > >Sounds reasonable. Since you are working with AP239, you >are probably already aware that the EuroSTEP folks who are >developing AP239 are involved in developing related ontologies >also. Some other people in the STEP community, such as Lothar >Klein (LKSoft), are also working on STEP-related ontologies. I work with EuroStep french team, located near Paris. STEP/ontologies is a wide and still opened issue... >> Once this global architecture is defined, the difficult work >> begins: how to model the knowledge in terms of an ontology? >> At his point, we fall in the well-known separation dealing >> with the technical and semantic issues related to a software >> implementation. While the first one is generally easy to solve, >> the KBE specialists are welcome to comment the second one! > >Yes, that's where much of the hard work is. :) > >I'm sure this discussion will continue ... I am glad we have >such common interests! Yes, it's nice to have someone to talk with about such complex but fundamental subjects! >Cheers, >Steve Cheers, Thomas _______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
