RE: facts about web ontology languages


UML is typically used as a modeling language independent of syntax. One
models the required concepts in UML and generates a representation of, or
software interface for, the model elements you defined in UML. The
generation process maps the UML model elements into some syntax or language
for implementation. In the RDF/S case, it's the concepts that can be
represented using RDF/S that would be mapped into UML, not whether the
representation is RDF/XML or N3.

The OMG is standardizing a representation of RDF/S and OWL using UML that is
known as the Ontology Definition Metamodel. That standard will include a
metamodel of the OWL and RDF/S languages as well as a way to map between
those languages and UML. It will also include standard techniques for
defining ontologies using graphical UML tools. That part of the standard
will be called something like a "UML Profile for OWL".


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Charles 
> McCathieNevile
> Sent: 11 December 2004 13:32
> To: Frank Clar
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: facts about web ontology languages
> Warning: My answers are not definitive - I am not one of 
> W3C's big experts on logic and OWL, and I know very little 
> about DAML+OIL. I hope someone follows up with more detailed 
> responses to the things I couldn't help with.
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Frank Clar wrote:
> >Here are my questions:
> >
> >Are they completely decidable?
> >Is it right that only OWL full and RDF/s are not decidable, because 
> >they do not seperate between concepts and instances?
> This is what the OWL specifications say, as I understand 
> them. (I think it is in the owl guide).
> >Do DAML+OIL and OWL DL support Description logics and for 
> this reason 
> >as well first order predicate logic?
> I don't know.
> >And do they support first respectively second order predicate logic? 
> >Only DAML+OIL and OWL lite and DL support first order 
> predicate logic, 
> >because they are based on Description logics?
> I don't understand the question. I suspect I don't know the 
> annswer though.
> >What different kinds of syntax do the above named languages 
> support and 
> >is it possible to map all of them to UML? RDF/XML, abstract 
> syntax, n3, 
> >n-triples...I have just found several articles, which 
> describe methods 
> >to map RDF/S to UML.
> RDF supports any syntax capable of describing the model. 
> Perhaps a more interesting question is what kinds of syntax 
> support RDF? There are a number.
> I have not done a lot of work reading up on UML, but it seems 
> that there are ways of mapping a lot of things to UML. I am 
> not sure if they can be completely mapped both ways.
> >Is it possible to express a kind of class variable, which has one 
> >single value for a concept? Is there a way to define one indirectly?
> >
> >Do DAML+OIL and OWL support reification and do they offer the 
> >possiblity to add additional information to the statements? I guess 
> >that reification has no meaning in OWL and DAML+OIL.
> OWL, because it is expressed in RDF (and for interoperability 
> in the RDF/XML
> syntax) doesn't need to support reification itself, since it 
> is already part of RDF.
> >Could you declare a default value for a literal, if no value was 
> >assigned to this property?
> I don't think so.
> Hope this was some help. Note that I am not W3C's expert on 
> many of these questions - I am just someone who tries to 
> answer things. I trust that people who are more familiar with 
> the logic stuff will answer the more  detailed questions.
> cheers
> Chaals
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile   
> tel: +61 409 134 136                 fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22
> Post:    21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Saturday, 11 December 2004 14:14:18 UTC