W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

RE: Extending OWL DL vocabulary

From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:48:31 -0500
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <09eb01c836bf$696836b0$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV>


Peter,

 > > > > > > > > > > - [Conrad] Finally, we should address a common use
 > > > > > > > > > >   of metamodeling that extends OWL for modeling
 > > > > > > > > > >   languages.  This defines subclasses of owl:Class
 > > > > > > > > > >   with additional properties that have values on
 > > > > > > > > > >   the instances of the subclass.

 > > > > > > > > >  [Peter] (I can see at least one way of setting up
 > > > > > > > > >  this sort of thing in OWL 1.1, but I don't know
 > > > > > > > > >  whether it would suit this usage because I don't
 > > > > > > > > >  know what is supposed to happen.)

 > > > > > > > > [Conrad] Would be very interested to hear about it.

 > > > > > > >  	SubClass( <umlclass> ... )
 > > > > > > >  	ClassAssertion( <umlclass> uml:Class )

 > > > > > > >  [Peter] You can even add information to the UML
 > > > > > > >  classes by adding information to the
 > > > > > > >  ClassAssertion axiom.

 > > > > > > [Conrad] What is "..." in the SubclassOf axiom?

 > > > > >  [Peter] The necessary condition for <umlclass>, as in
 > > > > >  the OWL 1.1 specification.

 > > > > [Conrad] Where is the axiom for uml:class being a subclass
 > > > > of owl:class?  That would be metamodeling, see above.

 > > >  [Peter] There is none in either OWL DL or OWL 1.1.  Why does
 > > >  there need to be one?  If the class has visibility on both the
 > > >  instance and the class level then that is metamodelling also,
 > > >  of a sense.

 > > [Conrad] I thought that's how the vocabulary was extended.  Is
 > > there another way?  Otherwise the instances of uml:Class would not
 > > be instances of owl:Class.

 >  [Peter] I don't understand what you mean by extending a vocabulary.

I meant subclasses of owl:class.  You were showing how to do that in OWL
1.1 (see top of thread above), but I would have thought there would be
an axiom defining those subclasses.  Or is the idea to have intances of
owl:class also be instances of uml:class?

Conrad
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 21:49:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT