Hi Holger, (01)
Thank you very much for your suggestion. I'll let Evan, Pat, Adam and
others in the community to comment on it. (02)
Besides mapping into OWL (or round-tripping, assuming we can actually
make a lossless mapping), we also (see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation#nid0136) want
to map to other more popular representations like XSD, UML, ... etc.
granted that some of those will be lossy translations. [Our original
list included: OWL, XML/XSD, RDF/S, UML2/OCL, UMM/UML Class Diagram,
SQL, ... ] (03)
We obviously want to capitalize on the rich suite of Protege plugins to
ease our job (on the multiple translation exercises, after we have
"imported" the KIF ontology into Protege and/or OWL). To that end, we
hope to tap into the Protege project team's knowledge and connections,
so that we can draw upon the expertise of people who have intimate
knowledge working between Protege and each and every one of the
representations that we are targeting. (04)
Suggestions? (05)
Thanks & regards. -ppy
-- (06)
Holger Knublauch wrote Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:46:14 -0700: (07)
>I may not have fully understand the requirements, but I think
>you are trying to find a maintainable, possibly round-trip
>mapping between OWL and KIF or SCL.
>
>My naive suggestion would be to try to map as much as possible
>directly into OWL + SWRL, and for the rest, map them into instances
>of a KIF/SCL metamodel. This metamodel would be a public OWL ontology
>containing classes such as Axiom etc. This should make round-tripping
>easy and transparent, and would not violate any OWL practices. The
>extra stuff could be made accessible into annotation properties.
>
>That's the short answer, feel free to get back with questions or
>comments.
>
>Holger
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Peter P. Yim [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:02 PM
>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>Cc: Patrick Cassidy; Holger Knublauch
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proceedings from Conference Call
>>Thu 2004-10-21
>>
>>
>>Hi Evan,
>>
>>We did not have much discussion on that (because Pat wasn't on the
>>call.) I only managed to report that we did meet on 2004.10.19 at the
>>workshop at NSF. Regretfully, I only managed to participate
>>briefly in
>>the 3-way conversation, before having to go into another meeting. Pat
>>and Holger did spend a bit more time together.
>>
>>Let's have either Pat or Holger (or both) give us an account of what
>>transpired.
>>
>>I'm looking forward to engaging the Protege team personnel to give us
>>some help when it comes to translating the normative [cctont]
>>(after it
>>gets imported into Protege) into the other representations. I'm still
>>look to you to guide the KIF-to-OWL translation exercise.
>>
>>Regards,
>>PPY
>>--
>>
>>ewallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:40:57 -0400 (EDT):
>>
>>
>>
>>>Was there any discussion of item 7 on today's agenda?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>updates from meeting between PatCassidy, HolgerKnubaluch? &
>>>>
>>>>
>>PeterYim
>>
>>
>>>>on 2004.10.19
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>-Evan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|