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

Re: modelling issue?

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:03:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4a4804720912061203y4e976d8fw9873fbfc6a9bc345@mail.gmail.com>
To: Elisa Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Cc: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Thanks a lot Elisa for the update

Indeed very useful work, glad someone is keeping a tab on the issue

You may rember from our previous exchanges that I have been following the
mapping to ODM
(I wrote a brief a couple of years ago which I hope I sent you a copy).  I
must admit that event OMG stuff was a bit complicated (at least back then
when I first looked into it)

I make the case not only for the simple minded, but also for those in the
enterprise who have limited
resources to devote to learning curve, so any means of
simplyfining/schematizing the leaps from one construct to another
actually help bridge the (costly and risky) cognitive gaps  add to the
usability/usefulness of the techniques

Will catch up with the new ODM spec, which is where I left it last time
Had heard of your talk on OWLED on somebody's twitter I am following, but
did not see the slides
so thanks for that

Keep us posted here too


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
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 20:06:00 GMT

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