- From: Arnold deVos <adv@langdale.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:57:12 +1100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "oliver fodor" <fodor@itc.it>
In the utility domain UML has been pretty extensively used for defining abstact schema which are then converted to RDF schema. I maintain some web pages with links about this [1,2]. There are various standards bodies and discussion groups involved. We convert these UML models to (extended) RDF schema using a tool [3]. Unfortunately, the full detail of the UML/RDFS mapping is not documented properly yet. But the main points are to be found in a related OMG specification [4] (section 8.2). I personally don't find UML as flexible as an RDF-based ontology. I would suggest that the basic problem is that UML makes classes first class citizens but not properties (associations/attributes). However, it is well accepted and has a graphical representation that people like. [1] http://www.langdale.com.au/DAF/ [2] http://www.langdale.com.au/CIMXML/ [3] http://www.langdale.com.au/styler/xpetal/ [4] http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/UMS_Data_Access_Facility.htm -- Arnold deVos Langdale Consultants adv@langdale.com.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "oliver fodor" <fodor@itc.it> To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:08 PM Subject: UML/XMI and semantic web > Hi! > > I'm evaluating XML-based technologies for a tool providing interoperability > on the data level between different systems in the tourism domain. > Naturally the question of building ontologies has came up. Observing the > research in this area it is still unclear to me whether it is > possible/feasible to use UML as modelling language for onthologies and then > XMI in order to provide a machine readable form? Please give me some pros - > contras, considering UML/XMI and let's say OIL based modelling. I'd also > welcome some related URLs. > > Thanks! > > oliver >
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 23:52:25 UTC