W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: UML for Ontologies and W3C Web Ontology Working Group

From: Lynn Andrea Stein <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:59:17 -0500
Message-ID: <3BF294CB.DF93D728@olin.edu>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I'm not volunteering to do this either, exactly, as my work on UML
predecessors is too long ago to make me a good candidate, but I would be
happy to work with someone (or a few someones) from the UML world (and,
if others are interested, from the DAML/OIL worlds) on this project. 
Once upon a time, I was an Object Oriented Person :o)

> Message-ID: <3BF24A76.EEF0534B@cs.vu.nl>
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:41:58 +0100
> From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
> To: W3C Web Ontology WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: UML for Ontologies and W3C Web Ontology Working Group
> Given the prominence of UML in industrial use (certainly in Europe, can't speak for the US), I think we would be wise to link our work with UML.
> A first step that someone could pick up as practical work is to look at the "ontology-like" constructions in UML, which ones of those are often used, and if we can express those in a language like DAML+OIL, and if not, should we include similar constructions. (I know for a fact that some useful (and often used) ontology-like constructions in class diagrams cannot be captured in DAML+OIL).
> Comparing ourselves with UML, and making clear which things of UML we can and cannot capture (and for the latter also why not) will make the road for our language into industrial acceptance much easier.
> (No, I'm not volunteering to do this:-).
> Frank.
>    ----
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 10:59:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:40 UTC