W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

RE: [OEP] OWL and Semantic interoperability $swbpd

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:07:01 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF05F5D12E@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

There's lots of kinds of 'semantic interoperability' which could be a
20-page paper in its own right.

This note is focussing on how two agents or applications might
communicate with each other even though they both have different
ontologies. Interoperability can happen by executing semantic mappings
between the two ontologies (e.g. you can say the class 'car' is logially
equivalent to the class 'auto'; you can also express equivalence of
individuals and properties. This assumes that all ontologies are in OWL.

You seem to be talking about interoperability among DIFFERENT
logic/KR/ontology languages. That is a whole different matter that is
beyond the scope of this note.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Elisa F. Kendall [mailto:ekendall@sandsoft.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 3:43 PM
To: Uschold, Michael F
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [OEP] OWL and Semantic interoperability

Mike,

The standards work we've been doing at the OMG to develop a set of MOF
(Meta
Object Facility, essentially a subset of UML) metamodels and related 
artifacts for
RDFS, OWL, SCL, and Topic Maps might be relevant to achieving broader
interoperability as well as to some of the software engineering work 
you're kicking
off.  Some of the MOF tools do provide good metadata, metamodel, and
model
management and interoperability capabilities.  What they lack is the 
semantic
representation and interoperability, and of course reasoning 
capabilities to enable
consistency checking, model validation, etc.  The goal for the Ontology 
Definition
Metamodel is to bridge this gap to the extent possible, allowing us to 
leverage other
existing metadata and models as a starting point for ontology 
development, providing
the semantics for a particular application or repository and linking 
them to other
models (logical and physical database models, or software component 
models, for
example), etc.

If it makes sense, we'd be happy to share a little more about recent 
developments
(last week Evan Wallace and I attended the OMG Technical Meeting in 
Burlingame). 
It might be relevant for your note, providing some of the infrastructure

support
that OWL alone does not provide and potentially narrowing the discussion
of
limitations. 

Let us know if an update on the recent meeting and plans for the next 
4-6 months
would be useful.

Thanks,

Elisa



Uschold, Michael F wrote:

> At a recent OEP meeting Pat Hayes made some great points, and there
was
>some good discusion.  The following summarizes what was said, to the
>best of my ability.   
>
>*	many traditional prolbms of semantic interoperability will go
>away with the Semantic Web, mainly because there is an infrastructure
to
>support semantic agreements (through publishing ontologies)  
>*	the Semantic Web forces people to think about making thing
>interoperable more than before, hence things will be better.
>*	problems of semantic interoperability will go away to the extent
>that people reference and re-use public ontologies in ways that are
>consistent with their original intended use.
>o	e.g. FOAF: mailboxOf , DC:author
>*	Semantic Web provides not only the technical capability, but the
>social motivation to resue concepts, so less translation will be
>necessary 
>*	Warning: reusing ontologies is hard, just like reusing software
>code is hard. People reuse code in the wrong way. The Semantic Web
makes
>it likely that people will reuse [portions of] ontologies in incorrect
>ways too.
>
>Pat: can you please elaborate on this a bit, I'm sure I missed some key
>things.
>
>BTW: my current working abstract for the note is:
>
>This note addresses the role of OWL in overcoming problems of semantic
>heterogeneity.  We briefly characterize what we mean by semantic
>interoperability, and what the challenges are. We describe some OWL
>constructs that are designed to support semantic interoperability and
>illustrate them with examples. We highlight their strengths and
>limitations.  The main message is that OWL is no silver bullet for the
>general problem of achieving semantic interoperability.  The support
>provided is very limited.  Many of these limitations will be overcome
by
>the Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) that is currently under
>development.
>
>
>Thanks
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 18:07:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:14 GMT