SUO: Different questions then.
Suppose I have three operational systems. System A has some kind of ontological engine that adheres to the methods allowed by the Skolem...Godel variety of logic, system B has some kind of ontological engine that adheres to the methods allowed by the Zermelo-Fraenkel variety of logic, and system C needs to mediate the interoperation of system A with system B. What kind of ontological engine does system C need to support this mediated interoperability? Does the ontological engine of C even make a difference for the purpose of achieving the interoperability of A and B via C? Can A and B interoperate completely without C?
Replace the "... variety of logic" in A and B with 3D and 4D data representations and ask the same questions about C. Are the answers similar?
Please don't beat me up about the choice of distinguishing features - pick something else. Anything that restricts the context of A to something different than the context of B will probably do the same job with respect to questions about the nature of C.
Put another way, consider a fashion studio that needs new equipment for production and the term 'wear' appears in the purchase information exchange. How does the ontology of each distinguish the meaning of the term when encountered in the information content of the other? If I'm the equipment broker, how does my ontology keep the meaning straight?
Cheers,
Richard