W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2009

Re: modelling issue?

From: Elisa Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:41:39 -0800
Message-ID: <4B1C08F3.5080007@sandsoft.com>
To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com
CC: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Hi Paola,

The concepts summarized in the table you found are actually mapped in 
the Ontology Definition Metamodel -- http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0/.  
The chapters that provide RDF and OWL (OWL 1) metamodels include 
complete MOF metamodels for the abstract syntax of RDF and OWL, which 
may be useful, and the chapter that covers the UML profiles for RDF and 
OWL shows how one could use UML tools for ontology development, mapping 
basic UML notation to both languages (again, only for OWL 1). 

The current revision task force, meeting this week at the OMG meeting in 
Long Beach, is working towards eliminating remaining issues in the basic 
spec, which we hope to finalize at the March meeting.  We then plan to 
work towards "upgrading" the specification to support OWL 2, although we 
have already been prototyping some features to make sure that there are 
no "gotchas" in the basic specification.  I presented a paper on this at 
OWLED last month, in fact -- see 
http://www.webont.org/owled/2009/papers/owled2009_submission_47.pdf.

Thanks for the reference -- it's great to see that people are finding it 
useful.

Elisa

Paola Di Maio wrote:
> Following further enquiry into some aspects of this thread
> I have come across an interesting (long) paper,
>
> Leveraging Knowledge reuse
> and system Agility in the
> Outsourcing Era
> Igor Crk, University of Arizona, USA
> Dane Sorensen,
>
> http://www.infosci-online.com/downloadPDF/pdf/ITJ4155_M28TbL5NcG.pdf
>
> (Not sure if requires campus level access or anyone can retrieve it, 
> email if you need a copy and cant access it)
>
>
> At the very bottom of this paper, page 14,   tables 3 and 4 show RDF 
> constructs in relation to the MOF (metaobject facility) equivalent
>
> I find this comparison extremely helpful, since it helps me understand 
> RDF properties in relation to other
> contructs I may also be familiar with (Object Model)
>
> I tried to retrieve the same tables from the sources cited in the 
> paper, but did not find it immediately (didnt search much either)
> http://www.w3schools.com/rdf/default.asp
>
> Wonder if a table like this is a useful cognitive artefact to explain 
> RDF, and wheter it already exists
> somewhere in the spects and I may have missed it before?
> (too much info perhaps)
>
>
>
>
> PDM
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Paola Di Maio 
> <paola.dimaio@gmail.com <mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     During Vocamp Glasgow, I tried to confront my difficulties in
>     identifying some domain range of few vocabularies that I started
>     rdfizing as practice, and from explosing my questions to a whole
>     range of RDF doctors (thanks Norm, Keith, Serge) two things
>     emerged, that i did not know before
>
>     1) an entity (class, object, subject) does not necessarily have
>     domain /range
>
>     Is that so, and what's the rule/ and possibly exceptions/ that can
>     be inferred and applied?
>
>     that did not emerge at Vocamp
>
>
>     2) Apparently a triple can be of two kinds:
>
>     class:relation:class
>
>      but also
>     class:attribute:value
>
>     Of this i would like some confirmtion (is this right?),
>     Finally,  finally, wouldnt' this ambiguity be confusing?
>
>     i dont have a case study for this yet, but if this is true I
>     suspect it could cause some possible  logical conflict/ambiguity
>     in semantic data model and its implementation
>     am I the only one thinking so?
>
>
>     Are the above points addressed in some RDF tutorial
>
>     please enlighten!
>     thanks a lot
>
>     PDM
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Paola Di Maio
> **************************************************
> The trouble with the world is that the stupid
> are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
>
> Bertrand Russell
> **************************************************
>
>
> ***************************************************
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 19:42:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 14:25:16 GMT