W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: UML-OWL Generator, A product to convert UML into OWL

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:12:26 +0200
Message-ID: <49FF21FA.1090303@danbri.org>
To: Elisa Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 4/5/09 17:41, Elisa Kendall wrote:
> Hi Bijan,
>
> I hadn't intended to point this out myself (since I'm assuming the folks
> who we've been exchanging email with have seen it and don't believe that
> it is an issue for their work), but thanks.
> We had what we believed were some key insights years ago, confirmed with
> Grady Booch in fact, that led us to believe that in order to create a
> "proper" mapping from a UML model to OWL, you needed to understand more
> about the semantics of the model than might be available from
> traditional reverse engineering. This was early work to tease out some
> of the issues, including the need for not only a of the language
> metamodel but an ontology of critical terminology in order to "do the
> right thing". We still use this approach in our tools, but have refined
> it significantly since 2000/2001 when we did the original research, as
> you might expect. The approach covers the combination of the methodology
> and the transformation to OWL (or other things). It predates ODM
> substantially, but our current work has been updated to support parts of
> the standard.
> When we submitted our inputs to ODM (and since, with subsequent updates
> to the standard), we agreed to license any relevant patents to anyone
> who was interested at reasonable commercial rates. That would include

Did anyone go ahead and license the patents commercially? What 
definition of "reasonable" are you following?

Dan


> the one you found. We are also planning to contribute some of the work
> to an emerging Eclipse project, the Eclipse/MDT project, and hope to get
> the ODM metamodels, profiles, and APIs out in the Galileo release coming
> out next month, fyi. None of those components require a license to our
> patent from a usage perspective.
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 17:13:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:57 GMT