- From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:40:47 +0100
- To: jean.vanderdonckt@uclouvain.be
- CC: public-mbui@w3.org
On 23/08/12 16:37, Jean Vanderdonckt wrote: > Dear all, > > It seems to me that UML metamodels and OWL ontologies are located at the > same level of abstraction. In the case of MB-UIDE, the initial UML metamodel > has been transformed into a XML Schema. Several different transformations > are possible for this purpose. OWL is more expressive than a XML Schema > since classes, instances, and properties could be expressed. In addition, > OWL benefits from several mechanisms such as symmetry and inverse > properties, which XML does not. > > Second, a UML metamodel could be transformed into OWL. See for instance: > http://topquadrantblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/converting-uml-models-to-owl-par > t-1.html . XML could be also transformed into OWL (see for instance > http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00624055/), but the resulting OWL > ontology is less expressive than the initial UML metamodel. > > For me, there are several advantages of having an OWL ontology (as we did in > http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/5/5d/UsiXML_submission_to_W3C.pdf): > - it is a W3C standard that has been largely used in certain domains like > FOAF and Dublin Core > - it is at the same level of abstraction of UML class diagram (which is a > OMG standard) > - it comes already with its own representation, like OWL2 XML syntax (no > problem with different XML syntaxes) > - it supports triple-stores that are supported by various development > environments > > My 2 cents, > Jean This makes a lot of sense to me. -- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 17:41:19 UTC