W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Graphical notation standard for OWL

From: Elisa Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:38:17 -0800
Message-ID: <49551689.6070003@sandsoft.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Hi Marcel,

Merry Christmas! 

There are really several components of the specification of a mapping 
between UML and OWL.  First, for model interchange (so that UML tools, 
Eclipse/EMF, MOF tools, and others can exchange RDF vocabularies and OWL 
ontologies consistently), there are metamodels for RDF (chapter 10) and 
OWL (chapter 11).  The OWL metamodel reflects OWL 1.0, although there 
are plans to extend it to support OWL 2 as part of a revision task force 
activity.  This may entail development of (1) an independent, standalone 
metamodel that is disconnected from RDF, (2) a metamodel that extends 
the current OWL metamodel in the specification, and (3) a mapping 
between the two, where the standalone metamodel may be derived from one 
originally developed by Peter Haase, Saartje Brockmans, and Boris Motik 
as part of the OWL 2 language development process.

Secondly, and more to your point, there is a graphical notation, called 
a profile from the UML perspective, for extending UML with specific 
notation to support ontology development in UML tools (chapter 14).  
Chapter 14 is where you should find a number of stereotypes and tagged 
values (both could be considered symbols) supporting OWL ontology 
development in tools such as IBM's Rational Software Architect, No 
Magic's MagicDraw, Enterprise Architect from Sparx Systems, and others.  
The OWL profile may also be extended to support additional features of 
OWL 2 as part of the ODM revision process.

UML is both more expressive than and less expressive than OWL - the 
mapping is not straightforward.  Chapter 16 attempts to cover some of 
the issues in a direct mapping between the logical subset of UML and OWL 
(ignoring behavioral features, for example), and contains some "code", 
developed by IBM China Research using the MOF (Meta-Object Facility) 
Query/View/Transformations (QVT) language.  This section is not 
normative, as we were not convinced that "all mappings are created 
equal" depending on the purpose of the mapping, the models themselves, 
and other constraints on the mapping processes.

You're correct that UML does not have an underlying model theory, 
although one may be developed for a subset of UML over the next year or 
so to support FUML (Functional UML, also called Executable UML).  There 
is discussion ongoing in the FUML community about developing such a 
model theory, and testing it via CLIF/IKL, which is a dialect of Common 
Logic.  I'm not a direct participant in that work, though I plan to 
follow it and have friends who are working on it if you're interested.

A number of us are in the process of launching a new Eclipse/MDT project 
to support ODM-based development, with a target initial release date of 
June, coincident with the Galileo release of the umbrella Eclipse 
project.  Let me know if you're interested and I'd be happy to point you 
to the work and/or enlist support :).

I hope this is helpful.  Happy Holidays!

Elisa

Marcel Ferrante wrote:
> Hi Elisa,
>
> Im reading the ODM specification and a important point is the ODM is 
> necessary because UML doesnt have semantic enough
> to represent completely a ontology model like OWL DL.
>
> But, I read the OWLbase metamodel and I cant see a /new symbol/ from 
> UML created to these situations. Maybe because
> I dont expert in UML either...So can you indicate it for me ?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Marcel
>
>
>
> 2008/12/20 Elisa Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com 
> <mailto:ekendall@sandsoft.com>>
>
>
>
>         The closest thing to a standardized graphical notation is the
>         OMG work:
>                http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/UML_Concrete_Syntax
>
>         This may be revised in light of OWL 2.
>          
>
>     Thanks for the plug, Bijan :).  This prompted me to revise the
>     page, linked above, which now reflects links to the latest version
>     of the ODM, now a formally adopted OMG standard, etc.
>
>     Evan Wallace and I gave a tutorial on this awhile back at an OMG
>     meeting, and are planning to update it for the March 2009 OMG
>     meeting in Washington DC.  If anyone is interested, let me know
>     and I can provide details on the meeting or the old slides, as
>     desired.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     Elisa
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Marcel Ferrante Silva
> Doutorando em Ciência da Informação - ECI/UFMG
> www.finaltec.com.br <http://www.finaltec.com.br>
> +55 31 8851-9069 2626-2859
> MSN: marcelferrante@hotmail.com <mailto:marcelferrante@hotmail.com>
Received on Friday, 26 December 2008 17:39:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:56 GMT