W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2014

Re: UML => OWL, SKOS => OWL?

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 06:52:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CANfjZH3fyL1+p8g8y-EjE=6E=ZkdyweStgGAAcdYmdKaAeoWfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@mitre.org>
Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Aug 15, 2014 7:57 PM, "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I’m looking for:
>
> 1)       Formalizations, methods, implementations, tools that
convert/transform UML object models into OWL ontologies in a structure- and
semantics-preserving way.

I believe that BRIDG (an ontology for clinical trials) was converted from
its normative UML model to OWL following OMG's ODM spec. The resulting OWL
is useful but a bit idiomatic. Property names are qualified by the types of
the types they go from/to so the look like:

  <domain>.<property><range>

  bridg:Activity.involvedExperimentalUnit

relates a subclass of Activity, e.g. a PerformedSubstanceAdministration
(pill, injection) to the recipient. The result is extremely precise and
verbose because it has to deal with the fact that a relation name
("involved") connecting two boxes is unrelated to any relation of the same
name connecting other boxes. It's up to you to invent subPropertyOf arcs if
you want, though it's a pain to write the OWL to downcast my: involved.

See http://bridgmodel.org/ and feel free to ask follow-up questions. I'll
try to go into more detail for the list's edification when I'm in front of
a real computer.

> 2)      Also, approaches that map SKOS vocabularies (especially
codelists) in a reasonable fashion to OWL ontologies. E.g., as value
enumerations of ranges of data or object properties.
>
>
>
> Concerning (1), I’m aware of early UML => DAML work, circa 2001-2. I am
also aware of more recent work such as:
>
>
>
> Zedlitz, Jesper, and Norbert Luttenberger. 2014. Conceptual Modelling in
UML and OWL-2. International Journal on Advances in Software, vol 7 no 1 &
2, year 2014, http://www.iariajournals.org/software/. Also:
http://www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=soft_v7_n12_2014_15.
>
>
>
> Zedlitz, J., and N. Luttenberger. 2013. Data types in UML and OWL-2, in
SEMAPRO 2013, The Seventh International Conference on Advances in Semantic
Processing, 2013, pp. 32–35.
http://www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=semapro_2013_2_20_50033.
>
>
>
> Zedlitz, J., J. Jörke, and N. Luttenberger, “From UML to OWL 2,” in
Proceedings of Knowledge Technology Week 2011, D. Lukose, A. R. Ahmad, and
A. Suliman, Eds., Berlin/Heidelberg, 2012, pp. p. 154–163.
>
>
>
> Zedlitz, J., and N. Luttenberger. 2012. Transforming Between UML
Conceptual Models and OWL 2 Ontologies,” in Proceedings of the Terra
Cognita Workshop on Foundations, Technologies and Applications of the
Geospatial Web, in conjunction with the 11th International Semantic Web
Conference (ISWC 2012), D. Kolas, M. Perry, R. Grütter, and M. Koubarakis,
Eds., 2012, pp. p. 15–26. [Online]. Available:
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-901/paper2.pdf.
>
>
>
> Do you know of other such work?
>
>
>
> Also, do you know of work addressing (2)?
>
>
>
> Thanks much!
>
> Leo
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Dr. Leo Obrst        The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
>
> lobrst@mitre.org     Information Technology Tech Center, CCG
>
> Voice: 703-983-6770  7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H317
>
> Fax: 703-983-1379    McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2014 10:53:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:38 UTC