Re: Extending OWL DL vocabulary

From: "Conrad Bock" <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Subject: RE: Extending OWL DL vocabulary
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:48:31 -0500

> Peter,
> 
>  > > > > > > > > > > - [Conrad] Finally, we should address a common use
>  > > > > > > > > > >   of metamodeling that extends OWL for modeling
>  > > > > > > > > > >   languages.  This defines subclasses of owl:Class
>  > > > > > > > > > >   with additional properties that have values on
>  > > > > > > > > > >   the instances of the subclass.
> 
>  > > > > > > > > >  [Peter] (I can see at least one way of setting up
>  > > > > > > > > >  this sort of thing in OWL 1.1, but I don't know
>  > > > > > > > > >  whether it would suit this usage because I don't
>  > > > > > > > > >  know what is supposed to happen.)
> 
>  > > > > > > > > [Conrad] Would be very interested to hear about it.
> 
>  > > > > > > >  	SubClass( <umlclass> ... )
>  > > > > > > >  	ClassAssertion( <umlclass> uml:Class )
> 
>  > > > > > > >  [Peter] You can even add information to the UML
>  > > > > > > >  classes by adding information to the
>  > > > > > > >  ClassAssertion axiom.
> 
>  > > > > > > [Conrad] What is "..." in the SubclassOf axiom?
> 
>  > > > > >  [Peter] The necessary condition for <umlclass>, as in
>  > > > > >  the OWL 1.1 specification.
> 
>  > > > > [Conrad] Where is the axiom for uml:class being a subclass
>  > > > > of owl:class?  That would be metamodeling, see above.
> 
>  > > >  [Peter] There is none in either OWL DL or OWL 1.1.  Why does
>  > > >  there need to be one?  If the class has visibility on both the
>  > > >  instance and the class level then that is metamodelling also,
>  > > >  of a sense.
> 
>  > > [Conrad] I thought that's how the vocabulary was extended.  Is
>  > > there another way?  Otherwise the instances of uml:Class would not
>  > > be instances of owl:Class.
> 
>  >  [Peter] I don't understand what you mean by extending a vocabulary.
> 
> I meant subclasses of owl:class.  You were showing how to do that in OWL
> 1.1 (see top of thread above), but I would have thought there would be
> an axiom defining those subclasses.  Or is the idea to have intances of
> owl:class also be instances of uml:class?
> 
> Conrad

Ahh, but the way I outlined doesn't use owl:Class at all, and certainly
doesn't subclass it.  

peter

Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 15:07:54 UTC