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

Re: Graphical notation standard for OWL

From: Marcel Ferrante <marcelf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:01:13 -0200
Message-ID: <920c1d2b0902020901o129559bcw71956922572d64ad@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hi Elisa, how are you?



Just now we could feedback you (my appologies)…We need time to diggest the
information that you sent to me and it was absoluty necessary for my study,
thank you.


So, we take the ontology elements from the ontology specification (
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide) mapping to the graphical representation
defined in the ODM specification. This mapping is summarized in this
document below. Please, feel free to correct me…

http://www.uniportal.com.br/media/marcel/UML-to-OWL-EN.pdf


The conclusion of this work is:

Most of ontology elements do not have a specific graphic symbol for their
representation or the element is represented in a literal and graphic form.


So, the problem continues because we couldn't define graphic symbols to
represent these elements.


 We understand the ODM representation form (based in UML) is not fully
suitable for information visualization interfaces, because the literal
representation needs much bigger area than a graphic symbol. In some cases,
it is not clear what iproperty is being represented.


Do you know why some UML symbols like composition and aggregation aren't
used until now (they could be mapped to some kind ontology properties)? And
there is another approach for this kind of representation (not based on
uml)?


Thank you very much,

Marcel


2008/12/26 Elisa Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>

>
> 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>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Marcel Ferrante Silva
Doutorando em Ciência da Informação - ECI/UFMG
www.finaltec.com.br
+55 31 8851-9069 2626-2859
MSN: marcelferrante@hotmail.com
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 17:01:58 GMT

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