[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:16:38 -0700
Message-id: <001301c4b84a$23f7ce70$d9d4fea9@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

ewallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:34:32 -0400 (EDT):    (01)

>Holger Knublauch wrote Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:46:14 -0700:
>>I may not have fully understand the requirements, but I think you are 
>>trying to find a maintainable, possibly round-trip mapping between OWL    (02)

>>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    (03)

>>a KIF/SCL metamodel.  This metamodel would be a public OWL ontology 
>>containing classes such as Axiom etc.  This should make round-tripping    (04)

>>easy and transparent, and would not violate any OWL practices.  The 
>>extra stuff could be made accessible into annotation properties.
>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?    (05)

Protege supports all the necessary OWL Full constructs (including
metaclasses if desired).  My guess is that any complete mapping from
KIF-like languages to OWL will lead to OWL Full, due to the larger
expressivity.  However, what's the problem with that?  Even if all
resulting ontologies are OWL Full, reasoners can still operate on
those parts that are meaningful in their (DL) context.  Extra
such as KIF axioms would be ignored on the fly to the reasoner.  I
am against attempts to try to artificially stay inside OWL DL, only
in order to satisfy reasoners that are too inflexible to handle OWL
Full.  In case you intend to map the non-OWL parts of KIF into extra
(annotation) objects, then these annotation objects could easily be
filtered out.  Of course, parts of the orginal semantics would get
lost, but that's natural.  So clearly any attempts should be made
to try to map into corresponding OWL/SWRL constructs that reasoners
know the semantics of.    (06)

You could represent KIF like SWRL in terms of an OWL metamodel/ontology.
The SWRL ontology is an OWL file like anyone else, available from:    (07)

http://www.daml.org/2004/04/swrl/swrl.owl    (08)

This means, you can already instantiate SWRL rules with any generic
OWL editor such as Protege: Just create a new project and import
the SWRL namespace.  Then use the Individuals tab to create rules etc.
A colleague of mine at SMI is working on an optimized Protege plugin
for handling SWRL more conveniently.    (09)

So, in a nutshell, someone could define a similar kif.owl ontology,
or a uml.owl.  These can be used to represent those extra information
that don't have a direct equivalent in OWL.  Then, annotation properties
could be used to link these objects to their context hosts.  And
interfaces should simply prune ontologies at properties that are marked
as annotation properties.  The DIG interface implemented by Matt
for Protege already does that, and I believe the Jena DIG does that as
Other APIs unfortunately reject any attempts to send such an ontology to
a reasoner, but that's in my opinion more a bug than a necessary
feature.    (010)

Holger    (011)

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    (012)

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