W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2002

Guide/Lang: UML as a presentation syntax for OWL

From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 11:07:51 -0400
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0E8D9F79.2B3A2AEC-ON85256BBA.005055DF@pok.ibm.com>
In reference to 
http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/docs/owl-uml/owl-uml.html

(are there reasonable tools for suggesting changes in HTML like there is 
in MS Word??


My comments:

As I mentioned in my previous note 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0100.html), I 
disagree with the note [LANG note: proposal to drop "primitive classes" 
and use "class" instead. This implies that, by default, classes are 
primitive.]   Since UML will only be able to specify primitive OWL 
classes, I believe we should be specific about this in the document.  Thus 
the first paragraph of the section:UML notations for OWL Lite, 
subsection:Classes and subclasses should read: 
"A primitive OWL class is shown in a similar fashion as a UML class. Note 
that ontologies typically do not specify class behavior, so the operation 
compartment will stay empty. Classes may have primitive subclasses."

The second sentence is not strictly true, since in OO languages most of 
what we can specify in OWL, such as inverses, transitivity, functional 
roles, etc. would need to be implemented.  "Inference" per se is not 
something one can specify directly in UML, and we may want to have some 
conventions of our own for specifying standard inferences - from a UML 
perspective I think these things would belong in the "class behavior" 
section.

Let's try to use decent examples, because they become canonical.  Male and 
Female are not subclasses of Animal.  Let's change the subclasses to 
"Mammal" and "Reptile"

Some details of the level 1 language should probably be worked out before 
we decide on many of the finer points.

We should show the precise OWL for each UML diagram.

The Animal has-parent Animal diagram is confusing, first of all my 
understanding of UML was that associations to the class require a single 
box, with a line going from that box out and then back.  Second, this is a 
cycle - does OWL allow cycles?

That's as far as I got.

-Chris

Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr.
Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA 
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055
Fax: +1 914.784.6078, Email: welty@us.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2002 11:08:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT