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

Re: UML for Ontologies and W3C Web Ontology Working Group

From: Stefan Decker <stefan@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:14:27 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011114110623.03ceeec8@db.stanford.edu>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Cc: melnik@db.stanford.edu
Dear all,

you might be interested in a specification of UML in RDF, done by
Sergey Melnik (see [1]).
This does not only cover the static aspects of UML, but also dynamic aspects
(statecharts) as well.
The Stanford RDF API [2] contains support for UML-RDF models.
[3] shows an application of the UML vocabulary: a converter from UML/XMI to 
DAML-O
     (update to DAML+OIL in progress)

And yes, I volunteer to do this.

[1] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/uml/
[2] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/api.html
[3] http://www.interdataworking.com/converter/


All the best,

         Stefan
--

At 07:59 AM 11/14/2001, Lynn Andrea Stein wrote:
>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 14:14:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:46 GMT