ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Mapping to other representations through Protege [was - Re: [ontolog-for

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:44:23 -0700
Message-id: <41791CC7.1090300@xxxxxxxx>
> 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?     (01)


First off, the mapping will be lossy as one would expect. But so will 
some of the other ones, even (like mapping KIF to UML Class Diagram).    (02)

XML, SQL and their schema are where the real content is (and probably 
will be, for a while yet), and over which eBusiness will be transacted.
By the time we can make that mapping, and understand what is being loss 
in the process, I trust we will be in position to fully apply ontologies 
to business transactions.    (03)

To deal with such "loss of fidelity", I trust we will need to turn to 
the work in "context methodologies" (UBL, for example, has a 
subcommittee working on this) and to the type of good work you guys at 
NIST are spearheading, in "semantic distance" (and "semantic tolerance").    (04)

That's 100 thousand feet ... could someone please come in at the 500 or 
1000 feet level jump in and throw some more light on this subject. :-)    (05)

-ppy
--    (06)

ewallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:11:13 -0400 (EDT):    (07)

>Peter Yim wrote Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:40:29 -0700:
>  
>
>>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, ... ]
>>    
>>
>
>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?
>
>-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)

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