<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">Thinking it up a little, it seems 'upper ontologies' should be dynamic (semantic) by nature. please read the last paragraphs of this document:</span><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><a href="https://github.com/CognescentBI/BISemantics/blob/master/Document.pdf?raw=true" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(66,133,244)">https://github.com/CognescentB<wbr>I/BISemantics/blob/master/<wbr>Document.pdf?raw=true</a><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">If we need 'upper ontologies' why not stay with relational databases and views / queries, for example, without needing rigid schemas again. Even OOP provides us yet the concept of alignment to a class hierarchy.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">Obviously this is only a SW 'hobbyist' opinion,</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px" dir="auto">Best,<br>Sebastián Samaruga<br>---<br><a href="http://exampledotorg.blogspot.com.ar/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(66,133,244)">http://exampledotorg.blogspot.<wbr>com.ar</a></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px" dir="auto"><br></div></div>