W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2003

OMG UML Profile for OWL status

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:20:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200309232020.QAA00462@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org


Dan recorded the following regarding webont discussion on 18 Sept 
of OMG's Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) RFP and initial responses to 
same:
>> 2.3 Other possible outreach activities of WebOnt
>> 
>> Status OMG UML Profile for OWL:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0053.html
>> 
>> - short discussion/brainstorm
>
>
>
>Guus: there are 3 proposals... anybody familiar with any of them?

Actually, there are four proposals.  The organizations proposing are:
DSTC, Gentleware/AT&T, IBM, and Sandpiper Software.  While all of the
proposals provide specifications for using UML to create ontologies
with a mapping to OWL, two different approaches were taken to achieve 
this.  
1) The first approach defined elements of a UML/MOF based lexicon that 
correspond directly to OWL DL constructs. This essentially defines a 
graphical language for modeling OWL ontologies rather directly, similar
to what Guus originally proposed.  The IBM and Gentleware/AT&T proposals 
took this approach which represented a minimal response to the RFP.
2) The second approach defined UML/MOF based elements of a graphical 
ontology definition language based on a non-OWL language model with a 
mapping to OWL.  Sandpiper used OKBC as its basis and DSTC used Web-KB[1].  
Both of these proposals provided a richer modeling environment then the 
minimal proposals.

>DebM: I'm somewhat familiar with the sandpiper proposal
>
>Guus: would feedback be good? what's the proper channel?
>Deb: yes...
>  feedback for the sandpiper proposal should go to elisa kendall ekendall@sandsoft.com
>

One could send feedback directly to the submitters or to ontology@omg.org.
Your address must be a target of at least one OMG mailing list to send to the
above list. If this is a problem, I could act as a relay for this.  Alternatively,
anyone can join ontology@omg.org by sending an email requesting this to
request@omg.org.  

Direct contacts for the other submissions are:
DSTC		Dr Kerry Ramond	pegamento@dstc.edu.au
Gentleware/AT&T	Marko Boger 	marko.boger@gentleware.de
		Lewis Hart	lewishart@att.com
IBM		Dan Chang	dtchang@us.ibm.com
		Yiming Ye	yiming@us.ibm.com


>Guus: Revised Submissions are due 27 October

This has been changed to 29 March 2004 to allow submitters to explore 
the possibility of merging proposals.  All the submitters were amenable to
this.

>Guus: is that when one gets chosen?
>
>DebM: that looks likely
>
> [... more on OMG process... not sure I got it...]

What follows is a *brief* summary of the process at OMG to create adopted 
technology specifications such as ODM.
*) A Request For Proposal is issued which requests OMG member organizations
to respond with a specification satisfying the requirements stated in the
RFP.  The RFP also includes a schedule for the remainder of the process.
*) The first responses to this RFP are called Initial Submissions.  These
were presented for ODM at the OMG meeting earlier this month and referenced
in [2].
*) Based on feedback from the sponsoring OMG subgroup, submitters refine 
their responses often joining with other submitters to prepare a Revised 
Submission.
*) Sometime subsequent to Revised Submission presentations, the sponsoring
subgroup may vote to recommend a submission for adoption by OMG.
*) After passing through a couple of other procedural gates, a recommended
submission is reviewed by the Business Committee.  They must be convinced
that proposers have serious plans to implement product conforming to the
specification before it can become an adopted OMG specification.  

>MikeD: how much OWL do they support? e.g. subPropertyOf?

All the initial submissions support subPropertyOf.  However, different 
UML tools support different subsets of UML.  Thus proposals that based
property on a less supported element like UML AssociationClass may be
problematic on some tools.


>Guus: do we need to review this, as a WG?
>
>DanC: I like to keep the SemWeb CG aware of liaison issues
>
>Guus: seems good to make sure other stds. body's work doesn't limit the use of OWL
>
>ACTION Guus: solicit advice on reviewing OMG proposals from SemWeb CG

Since submitters are likely to be working on the next iteration of their design
soon, now is a good time to bring up any major issues.  Smaller details should
be left for after Revised Submissions have been prepared.

-Evan


[1] http://www.webkb.org
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0053.html
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:20:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT