[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontolog-forum] Proceedings from Conference Call Thu 2004-10-21

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: ewallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <200410221334.JAA06420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Holger Knublauch wrote:    (01)

>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.    (02)

Now that is something I would really like to see!  It would seem to
me though that a CL metamodel in OWL would have to be in OWL Full.  Would
Protege-owl support the Full expressivity needed for that?  For all that,
where would you store the SWRL in Protege as well?      (03)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>