- From: Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:37:20 -0800
- To: Anne Cregan <Anne.Cregan@nicta.com.au>
- CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Anne and all, I've revised the wiki page, referenced below, to include a little more information about the UML profile for RDF and OWL that I hope will be useful for this group. I have not had time to look at the ontology Anne suggested for use in examples, but will do so as time permits. Best, Elisa Anne Cregan wrote: > Hi Alan, > > Actually I'm not suggesting anything so far, I just wanted to open it > up for discussion. It may well be that if there is an activity to > conduct here, it fits better with OWLED > than with OWL-WG, so apologies if I have not gone about this the right > way. > However I didn't want to pre-judge whether there should be an > activity, or what kind > of an activity it might be. > > Bijan and Ivan recommended to me to shift this page to the official WG > wiki (I guess that > indicates they think it should be an OWL-WG concern rather than an > OWLED one?), > and it is now at > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/UML_Concrete_Syntax > > with the OWLED page as a forward pointer: > http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/UMLGraphicalNotation > > Again apologies if I have gone about things the wrong way. I am > relatively new to the group > and appreciate the clarification. > > Just so I can be clear on the distinction - should I take it then that > the OWL-CNL task force has no official > status within the OWL-WG? > > Thanks > > Anne > > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> Hi Anne, >> >> I'm uncertain whether you are suggesting an activity for the working >> group, or an OWLED activity. You mentioned this in the same sentence >> as CNL, which is an OWLED Task force. The distinction is that OWLED >> Task forces are generally conceived as sort of incubation projects >> for a future version of OWL focused on topics that are of interest >> but need development, and it would seems that this project would >> fall into that category. >> >> If an OWLED activity, a better place to have the discussion would be >> the public-owl-dev@w3.org discussion list. (Most of us read both, but >> the owl dev list allows posting by more than working group members). >> >> Regards, >> Alan >> >> On Nov 11, 2007, at 2:20 AM, Anne Cregan wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've received some replies off-list, particularly some details of >>> the UML profiles developed for OWL and RDF as part of the ODM. >>> >>> One thing I would particularly like to clarify (as Bijan highlighted >>> to me) is that this thread is intended to address a visual >>> *notation* for OWL, >>> not the visualization of ontologies in a broader sense. >>> >>> I've started a wiki page to capture details of the various Graphical >>> Notations for OWL and RDF that have been developed to date: >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/GraphicalNotation >>> >>> Please contribute any more you are aware of. >>> >>> >>> I've also recorded some details of the UML Graphical Notation >>> developed for RDF and OWL1.0 within the ODM, in a linked page at >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/UMLGraphicalNotation >>> >>> This info was kindly provided by Elisa Kendall, who was closely >>> involved in the development effort. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> Anne Cregan wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Alexander, >>>> Please see comments below >>>> >>>> Alexander Garcia Castro wrote: >>>> >>>>> My five cents: >>>>> >>>>> independent of any ontology editor >>>>> >>>>> from my experience the graphical representation of the ontology >>>>> should >>>>> not be kept separated from the manipulation of OWL constructs. the >>>>> graphical representation should also provide the means for direct >>>>> manipulation. Editors such as Protege have a lot of visual aids, all >>>>> of them are separated from the editing process. This, in practical >>>>> terms, means that one always has to go back to the hard-to-manage >>>>> tree-like-hierarchy. A good example that illustrates the >>>>> importance of >>>>> this relationship (editing and visualizing) comes from very advanced >>>>> IDEs such as JDEVELOPER, JBUILDER, etc. For these IDEs the >>>>> visualization facilitates the manipulation of those constructs the >>>>> language provides, also facilitates the processes one has to run as a >>>>> programmer. >>>>> >>>> I wasn't meaning in any way to devalue your work - I think it's a >>>> fantastic idea to be able to edit >>>> ontologies graphically, and I'm really looking forward to trying >>>> out your stuff! >>>> >>>> My motivation was more from the angle of : now we have this >>>> ontology and we want to show it to >>>> people in some generally acceptable way. I often find myself >>>> preparing presentations that show >>>> ontologies (or at least try to!) and I'd just like to have some >>>> consensus on what shape is a class, >>>> what does a property look like, what does a restriction look like >>>> etc, so that people can easily interpret >>>> what they are seeing in the way they currently can with E-R >>>> diagrams for instance. >>>> >>>>> do working group members have any strong feeling about a preferred >>>>> way >>>>> >>>>>> to do it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion this is problem dependent. Not only depends on the >>>>> ontology at hand, but also the "what do you need the visualization >>>>> for" affects the choice. >>>>> >>>> That's a good point, and part of the nature and power of ontologies >>>> is their ability to be >>>> viewed and used from many "angles" (by class, by property, by >>>> individual etc). It may well not be >>>> just one view but several related views that we will need. It may >>>> not be realistic to expect to capture >>>> a whole ontology in just one diagram. >>>> >>>>> do we want to discuss the approaches and perhaps consider moving >>>>> >>>>>> towards a recommended approach? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An open discussion may lead to a series of recommendations. that >>>>> would >>>>> be nice. I could in that way enrich my plug in, and the rest of the >>>>> tools we are currently planning to develop. >>>>> >>>> I think something like what Vipul suggested - a UML-like >>>> representation - is worth pursuing. >>>> I look forward to comments from those in the community who have >>>> worked on the ODM and >>>> may have some valuable advice here. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We already have a task force working an English syntax for OWL1.1, >>>>>> perhaps we might want to consider >>>>>> a task force working towards agreeing on a visual representation >>>>>> as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This representation along with the corresponding graphical >>>>> environment >>>>> should facilitate the development of ontologies by domain experts. >>>>> Even if it is just at the level of a baseline ontology. >>>>> >>>> I agree, although IMHO even domain experts should get their hands >>>> dirty and use the tools, not >>>> just look at static diagrams! >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Anne >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 10, 2007 4:47 AM, Anne Cregan <Anne.Cregan@nicta.com.au> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have lately seen several approaches to visual rendering of >>>>>> ontologies >>>>>> (see details below). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm wondering how the group feel about the visual representation of >>>>>> ontologies as diagrams >>>>>> independent of any ontology editor: >>>>>> - do working group members have any strong feeling about a >>>>>> preferred way >>>>>> to do it? >>>>>> - do we want to discuss the approaches and perhaps consider moving >>>>>> towards a recommended approach? >>>>>> >>>>>> We already have a task force working an English syntax for OWL1.1, >>>>>> perhaps we might want to consider >>>>>> a task force working towards agreeing on a visual representation >>>>>> as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts and comments invited. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Posting today on CG list from Alexander Garcia Castro >>>>>> <alexgarciac@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>>> We have developed a new tool that facilitates the generation of >>>>>>> ontologies in graphical way. The tool is a plug-in for Protege, it >>>>>>> uses all of Protege OWL plug in in order to facilitate the direct >>>>>>> manipulation of OWL constructs. In this way domain experts are >>>>>>> able to >>>>>>> build ontologies in a simple and intuitive manner, the plug-in also >>>>>>> allows users to load pre-existing ontologies and edit them by using >>>>>>> the same graphical features. The tool is available at >>>>>>> http://map2owl.sourceforge.net/, initially our web site is only in >>>>>>> Spanish, an English version is on the pipe. >>>>>>> >>>>>> There's also a tool called VisioOWL >>>>>> http://mysite.verizon.net/jflynn12/VisioOWL/VisioOWL.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> VisioOWL is a Microsoft Visio application to support the use of >>>>>>> Visio >>>>>>> for creating graphical representations of OWL ontologies. This >>>>>>> implementation is intended to provide, as close as possible, a >>>>>>> direct >>>>>>> one-to-one mapping between the OWL language constructs and their >>>>>>> graphical representation. The graphical representation of an OWL >>>>>>> ontology may provide, for some developers and users, a more >>>>>>> comprehensive insight into overall class and property relationships >>>>>>> than could be garnered from the OWL markup alone. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The contact listed is John Flynn jflynn12@verizon.net >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe there's also a UML-aligned approach as developed as >>>>>> part of the OMG Ontology Metamodel >>>>>> led by Evan Wallace ewallace@nist.gov >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.omg.org/ontology/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 02:37:39 UTC