W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: LANG: UML as reference point (was: LANG: frame paradigm)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:22:31 -0500
Message-Id: <p0510151ab8c6ce8e34e6@[]>
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 10:38 PM +0100 3/26/02, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
>Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>  I think we should consider the UML class model also as background
>>  reference.
>Below an indication of how RDF Schema, OWL Light and Full OWL score on
>I'm using [1] for OWL Light and Full OWL, not taking into account 
>the proposed changes since then.
>I'm also assuming semantic containment between RDF Schema and OWL Light
>(and of course between OWL Light and Full OWL).
>- subclass relation
>   already in RDF Schema
>- disjointness,
>   in OWL Light
>- completeness (through constraints)
>   only in Full OWL
>- attributes (datatype properties) and relations (object properties)
>   in OWL Light
>- cardinality constraints for attributes and relations
>   in OWL Light for n=1
>   only in Full OWL for arbitrary n
>- default values for attributes
>   Not even in Full OWL

I think the term "default" is used differently here - in UML the 
defaults can be, essentially, monotonic, in the sense that it is a 
default that a female mammal lactates to feed its young (this is 
definitional, no exceptions in the natural world)  --  using the 
notion of default as "All of them have this value so it doesn't have 
to be specified on each"
    in Full OWL
    in OWL Light (I think - not 100% sure)

>- class-scoped attributes (same for every member of class)
>   in OWL Light
>- part-whole relations between classes (strong=composition,weak=agrregation)
>   Not even in Full OWL

not built in - but it is clear that even in RDFS one can define 
part-whole properties - they just don't have special meaning.

>- abstract vs. concrete class, root and leaf class
>   Not even in Full OWL
>- tagging through stereotypes and tags
>   Unsure what this means (FvH)
>Question: is any of the above reason for satisfaction? concern?
>    ----
>[1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 20:22:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:28 UTC