AW: DCAP in UML/OWL/XSD

Hi Jeff,

I'd see it as a definitive advantage if I could automatically generate software (or at least parts of it) from an application profile. I'm thinking about Java XML-beans and similar frameworks. Do you know if there is anything similar to that for OWL? If not, we'd have to de-tour OWL-XSD and then generate it from XSD.

All the best,

Lars

-- 
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik
http://www.d-nb.de/


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] Im
> Auftrag von Young,Jeff (OR)
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2010 17:33
> An: Jodi Schneider
> Cc: public-lld
> Betreff: RE: DCAP in UML/OWL/XSD
> 
> Jodi,
> 
> 
> 
> The point on UML is a bit of a tangent: IMO, UML domain models are a
> variant of OWL (80-20 rule). If seeing UML class diagrams help people
> visualize an ontology, great. If not, ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> In general, though, I think that Michael Panzer and I hope to encourage
> the use of OWL as the preferred abstract model. Even though OWL
> semantics specify  an open-world assumption, this only becomes relevant
> at the point where reasoning is applied. Until then, the application
> model is the same regardless. Michael's brief demo of the Pellet
> Integrity Constraint Validator (ICV) at the Joint Meeting seems to show
> promise as a bridge between OWL and closed-world views.
> 
> 
> 
> http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv/
> 
> 
> 
> Another way to impose a closed-world view on OWL is to translate it
> (i.e. the application model expressed in OWL) into XSD, which is the
> route I took. I would argue that the OWL and XSD (and UML class diagram
> for that matter) are just variant Web document representations of the
> exact same application model. In other words, any one of these three
> could serve as the datum from which the others could be generated at
> runtime (80-20 rule).
> 
> 
> 
> http://alcme.oclc.org/dcap/UML.png
> 
> http://alcme.oclc.org/dcap/model.owl
> 
> http://alcme.oclc.org/dcap/model.xsd
> 
> 
> 
> So in effect, this route could be viewed as an XSD "Integrity
> Constraint Validator" that is analogous to what Pellet ICV is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.schneider@deri.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:40 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: public-lld
> Subject: Re: DCAP in UML/OWL/XSD
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing this, Jeff. Is the point just to show the
> translation itself, or are there key facts that you're pointing out
> about what's lost/changed in translation? (Just trying to make sure I'm
> not missing something.)
> 
> 
> 
> -Jodi
> 
> 
> 
> On 25 Oct 2010, at 21:42, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A zip file is attached with an example translation of an OWL ontology
> into XSD to check closed-world assumptions. This was the essence of
> what I talked about at the Joint Meeting:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/JointMeeting2010#Part_1_.2814:00-
> 15:30.29:_Review_of_DCMI_Abstract_Model.2C_brainstorming_on_requirement
> s
> 
> 
> 
> The key documents are also browsable on the Web:
> 
> 
> 
> http://alcme.oclc.org/dcap/
> 
> 
> 
> I kept the XSD focused on a single individual of type Work, but in
> principle XSDs could be built that systematically bundled more of the
> surrounding individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Michael's demonstration of Pellet using SPARQL queries to
> do validation is more interesting because it can be applied beyond RDF
> document ingest.
> 
> 
> 
> Comments, questions and discussion are welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Jeffrey A. Young
> Software Architect
> OCLC Research, Mail Code 410
> OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
> 6565 Kilgour Place
> Dublin, OH 43017-3395
> www.oclc.org
> 
> Voice: 614-764-4342
> Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342
> Fax: 614-718-7477
> Email: jyoung@oclc.org
> 
> 
> 
> <dcap.zip>
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 06:00:24 UTC