W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mbui@w3.org > September 2012

Re: MBUI limitation

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:40:47 +0100
Message-ID: <50521A9F.9070002@w3.org>
To: jean.vanderdonckt@uclouvain.be
CC: public-mbui@w3.org
On 23/08/12 16:37, Jean Vanderdonckt wrote:
> Dear all,
> It seems to me that UML metamodels and OWL ontologies are located at the
> same level of abstraction. In the case of MB-UIDE, the initial UML metamodel
> has been transformed into a XML Schema. Several different transformations
> are possible for this purpose. OWL is more expressive than a XML Schema
> since classes, instances, and properties could be expressed. In addition,
> OWL benefits from several mechanisms such as symmetry and inverse
> properties, which XML does not.
> Second, a UML metamodel could be transformed into OWL. See for instance:
> http://topquadrantblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/converting-uml-models-to-owl-par
> t-1.html . XML could be also transformed into OWL (see for instance
> http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00624055/), but the resulting OWL
> ontology is less expressive than the initial UML metamodel.
> For me, there are several advantages of having an OWL ontology (as we did in
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/5/5d/UsiXML_submission_to_W3C.pdf):
> - it is a W3C standard that has been largely used in certain domains like
> FOAF and Dublin Core
> - it is at the same level of abstraction of UML class diagram (which is a
> OMG standard)
> - it comes already with its own representation, like OWL2 XML syntax (no
> problem with different XML syntaxes)
> - it supports triple-stores that are supported by various development
> environments
> My 2 cents,
> Jean

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 17:41:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:23 UTC