RE: ACTION review of ODL draft

> SCL can be mapped to OWL-Full, but being more expressive, the reverse
> does not hold. Thus oneway transformation.

Of course I mean OWL-Full can be mapped to SCL, SCL being more
expressive.

Sorry for the confusion.

G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Gary Ng
> Sent: 28 October 2004 12:03
> To: Guus Schreiber; SWBPD list
> Subject: RE: ACTION review of ODL draft
> 
> 
> I agree with Guus, I have no request for change, and the goals,
coverage
> and requirements are well articulated and tracked.
> 
> I have gone through Ch 1, 4, 5, 6 (6 is the one specifying a
Description
> Logic based model). Ch 2 only briefly (it is an inclusion of previous
> drafts). Ch3 Design Rationale is not included in the draft.
> 
> After today's discussion with Dan Chang, much of my previous
> comments/questions have been touched on, albeit some are still
remained
> as questions. Included below is my edited summary to date. They are
> complementary to Guus' [1] and overlaps the minutes of the telecon +
IRC
> log [2]. In many cases, the summary puts some context/structure from
> which to interpret the minutes/chat log [2].
> 
> Hope this is useful.
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> My main questions remaining:
> 
> ODM metamodel: Inter-transformation, how language feature mismatches
are
> 
>                dealt with.
> 
> UML Profiles: The extent/complexity/workflow/tool-chain of their
> 		applications; legacy vs new; and also downstream
> apps/code
>             generation.
> 
> 
> Revised ODM draft
> -----------------
> 
> Next revision will include the following:
> 
> - Metamodels of different languages
> - UML Profile for each
> - Metamodels mappings (Specified using Query View Transformation
(QVT))
>      OWL Full<->TM, OWL Full<->ER, OWL Full->SCL, OWL Full<->UML
> - Generated XMLSchema artifacts
> 
> Scope:
> -----
> - Ontology Design language: RDF, OWL, TopicMaps
> - Modelling: UML, ER
> - OWL Full as the core
> 
> Metamodels for RDFS, OWL, OWL extension to RDFS
> 	  addresses ontology modelling
> Metamodel for topic map
> 	  addresses taxonomy modelling
> Metamodel for SCL
> 	  addresses the domain of logic theory
> Metamodel for ER
> 	  addresses community on conceptual modelling, very close to
> ontology.
> 
> Rather than declaring something out of scope, the above was more of an
> industry led consensus of what is in scope based on industrial
traction
> and prevalence.
> 
> It was mandated: must address RDFS, OWL-DL (or optionally Full)
> Sandpiper is working on SCL: they talked about SCL will replace
F-Logic
> as the formal backing of OWL. Thus it was included.
> 
> Express from STEP was a little late to be included. However, it may be
> proposed during the finalizing phase starting in Jan for inclusion in
> the next evolution.
> 
> De-scoping DL:
> --------------
> 
> Why drop DL? It is actually moved to non-normative appendix.
> 
> Took close look at DL as core, later discussion with Deb McGuiness,
her
> view OWL-DL is the std definition for DL, thus there is no other
reason
> for another DL metamodel.
> 
> Alan: Qualified number restriction constraint in DL, is not included
in
> OWL-Full/DL. Thus OWL may not be enough for general transformation.
> 
> OWL Full as superset of OWL DL. This only applies to syntax, semantics
> wise there are major differences. This shall be addressed via
> constraints in SCL, will have set of common constraints, on top of
which
> special constraints for OWL-DL if necessary.
> 
> Dan Change will take these opinions back to ODM team.
> 
> 
> Metamodels transformation:
> -------------------------
> 
> SCL can be mapped to OWL-Full, but being more expressive, the reverse
> does not hold. Thus oneway transformation.
> 
> Dan Chang to feed back to ODM group the opinion that SCL is based on
> KIF, designed as interchange format. May be more appropriate as the
Core
> meta model.
> 
> 
> 
> Profiles:
> --------
> 
> Louise Hart doing ODM Profiles
> 
> UML <-> OWL mappings will be useful for legacy migration of UML models
> of systems to OWL. Idea is to have UML tools to model and generate
OWL,
> RDF, topic maps. At the same time "encourage build on a legacy base
and
> then proceed in another meta-model".
> 
> There will be possible problems, say mapping ER to OWL-Full due to
> qualified cardinality restrictions, which is not in OWL at all.
> 
> 
> Outlook:
> --------
> 
> OMG will publish table of mappings in Jan, may be incomplete.
> By 11th Jan it must be submitted to OMG, thus End of Nov a draft will
be
> available for SWBPD, the month of Dec for feedback.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gary
> 
> [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0078.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/10/28-swbp-irc#T14-12-43
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of Guus Schreiber
> > Sent: 14 October 2004 09:58
> > To: SWBPD list
> > Subject: ACTION review of ODL draft
> >
> >
> > > 5. ODM / UML ONTOLOGY PROFILE
> > >
> > > See Evan's message:
> > >
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0044.html
> > >
> > > Comments from SWBPD?  Any updates from Guus, BenB or Gary?
> >
> > I Looked at the draft ODM spec"
> >
> >    http://www.omg.org/docs/ontology/04-08-01.pdf
> >
> > A big plus compared to (some of the) earlier drafts is that the
> > ODM covers OWL Full and not just OWL DL. Otherwise, the ODM would be
> of
> > limited use for users who prefer either RDF Schema or OWL Full.
> >
> > I've been reading mainly Chs. 5, 7 and 8.  Ch. 5 contains a very
> > readable informal description of the matches and mismatches between
> > the expressivity of UML and OWL. It shows the authors have a high
> > level of understanding of OWL and RDF Schema (e.g. see the remark on
> > p. 27 about the relation between "classifier" in UML and
> > subclasses/properties in RDF/OWL).  I can recommend this chapter as
an
> > instructive read for people interested in the UML-RDF/OWL
> > relationship.
> >
> > Chs. 7 and 8 specify resp. the RDF Schema and OWL metamodels as a
MOF
> > M2 model. Properties are represented with MOF classes and not as
> > associations. This makes sense, because of the first-class nature of
> > properties in RDF/OWL. (Note: Ch. 5, p. 26 seems to suggest simple
> > binary properties should be modeled as a MOF Association.)
> >
> > All major RDF/OWL constructs (class, property, resource/individual,
> > literal) are represented as M2 classes. I'm not a MOF expert, but
this
> > suggests to me that the graphical representation as a UML Profile
will
> > not be very distinctive/intuitive. On the other hand, it is hard to
> > see an alternative.
> >
> > Overall, I'm happy with the draft as it stands. At the moment I see
no
> > compelling reasons for change requests.
> >
> > Guus
> >
> >
> > --
> > Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
> > De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> > Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718
> > E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
> > Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
> >
> >
>

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:11:27 UTC