[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 10:11:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <200410221411.KAA06478@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Peter Yim wrote:
>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, ... ]    (01)

I suspect that defining a mapping such as Holger suggested would be a
major undertaking in itself (IMHO a very worthwhile one).  Once implemented,
RDFS, UML class diagrams, and possibly UML2/OCL could "fall" out of it.
It is less clear to me though what sort of mapping would be wanted for
XML and SQL.  Those are not conceptual or ontology languages.  How would
one use the result?    (02)

-Evan    (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>