- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 22:30:46 +0100
- To: Elisa Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 4 May 2009, at 22:10, Elisa Kendall wrote: > Hi Bijan, > > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> Thanks Elisa. That's very interested. As you know, my brain seems >> to resist UML, so these sorts of discussions are helpful indeed. > You're clearly not the only one :). Misery loves company... > We /still/ come up with questions on both sides of the problem (UML > as well as OWL) given that it's nature is "round peg, square hole", > at levels of detail that still make my head hurt at times. :) [snip] >>>>> This was early work to tease out some of the issues, including >>>>> the need for not only a of the language metamodel but an >>>>> ontology of critical terminology in order to "do the right thing". >>>> >>>> I guess I'm still not seeing what's special about the *technique* >>>> as so described. (Admittedly, the description is pretty sketchy.) >>>> I could see that the "ontology of critical terminology" might be >>>> valuable (since, presumably, it'd make or break the translation), >>>> but that seems to be something for copyright or a trade secret, >>>> not a matter of patent. I mean, do you think your patent covers >>>> *any* use of an auxiliary ontology in the translation? >>> Yes -- it's integral, in fact. >> >> I'm confused. So, if I translate a UML diagram into an OWL ontology >> and align that ontology to DOLCE, I infringe? > No -- only if you use the ontology as part of the transformation > process (I think, if I understand what you're saying), and only if > the transformation met other criteria. [snip] So what's the difference between: A) AlignWith(Translate2OWL(UML), DOLCE) (where the output is an ontology aligned with DOLCE) and B) Translate2OWLWithOntology(UML, DOLCE) (where the output is an ontology aligned with DOLCE) Or to put it another way, what's the value add of using the ontology "as part of the transformation"? What different sorts of output do you get? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 21:31:22 UTC