AS-1: i1) when you mention that you have your own language the fundamental requirement is to have implementation i.e. processor for it. If you have a proposal to enhance some language the question is which one? OWL2, CL, CASL, HOL4?
HG-1
Question1. A fundamental requirement for a language such as the descriptive modeling language is that it has implementation. Would you propose enhancing some language such as OWL2, CL, CASL, HOL4?
Answer1. If one actually expects engineers to use the language , I would not recommend starting with any of these language’s with the possible exception of HOL4. The reason is foremost that graphical syntax is critical if engineers are going to use the language. Build on the graphical syntax of the UML family of languages incorporating reasoning. The reasoning needed is relatively simple. The descriptive modeling language is an extension of a SysML like language with some additional syntax very familiar from mathematics and computer science. The formalism has been implemented with a reasoner (Algos 1986). To obtain a modern implementation it makes much more sense to use an open source language with graphical syntax and integrate reasoning with plugin inference engines. OWL, for example, does not have term constructions which is an absolute necessity. They could be added of course, but it would change the character of the language.
AS-2: the answer to AS-1 is in "The descriptive modeling language is an extension of a SysML like language with some additional syntax very familiar from mathematics and computer science" but in the form "The descriptive modeling language is an extension of a SysML" i.e. new features should be undestand as a part of SysML.
And the short answer is SysML:-)
Leave your comments ==> here:-)