On 12/4/2012 2:52 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Each of the UML diagram types combines a special-purpose subset of
> logic with some built-in ontology. When they're applied to a new domain,
> some adjustment may be necessary. But a lot of people are using UML
> diagrams for ontology. Just type "UML ontology" to Google. (01)
I decided to take my own advice and do a bit of Googling.
Following are two of the 1,010,000 hits: (02)
http://www.sandsoft.com/docs/SandpiperOMGMDA2002.pdf
Introduction and UML Profile for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) (03)
These slides from 2002 are by Elisa Kendall and Mark Dutra.
Elisa also drew UML diagrams to illustrate the semantic
relationships in the ISO standard 24707 for Common Logic. (04)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.47.1943
UML as an Ontology Modelling Language (05)
This article by Stephen Cranefield and Martin Purvis was presented
at IJCAI-99, the year before the DAML proposal by Tim Berners-Lee.
Except for the recommendation to use UML, it is more consistent with
Tim's proposal than either one is with the DAML final report in 2006. (06)
Following are some quotations from that article: (07)
> Current tools and techniques for ontology development are based on
> the traditions of AI knowledge representation research. This research
> has led to popular formalisms such as KIF and KL-ONE style languages.
> However, these representations are little known outside AI research
> laboratories. (08)
Amen, Amen. (09)
> This paper ... presents an ontology representation language based on
> a subset of the Unified Modeling Language together with its associated
> Object Constraint Language. (010)
OCL is a very quirky and awkward version of FOL. I would recommend
Controlled English as a replacement for OCL. But it's important to
have a general-purpose formal logic to define the semantics of all
Controlled NLs, all UML diagrams, and all the AI-based tools. (011)
Tim B-L's SWeLL or Common Logic (which Pat Hayes and Guha used as
the Logic Base for RDF) could be used as the formal foundation.
Most users would see UML diagrams and controlled natural languages. (012)
> Descendants of KL-ONE include LOOM and a family of logics called
> description logics or terminological logics. The KIF frame ontology
> discussed above also allows this type of specification to be used
> in conjunction with more general KIF sentences. (013)
Yes. That is the long-established tradition of hybrid systems that
use a DL language for the T-Box (terminological box) and a more
general logic for the A-box (assertion box). (014)
> Nothing can or should be assumed about the underlying databases and
> information storage systems... (015)
This is compatible with Tim B-L's emphasis on diversity. It is also
a prerequisite for supporting legacy systems as first-class citizens
of the WWW and SW. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. (016)
> ... unless a system that uses ontologies is constructed around a
> tool such as LOOM, there seems to be nothing inherently intuitive
> or appealing in the use of a description logic formalism to
> represent ontologies. (017)
Yes. The overwhelming number of published OWL ontologies don't use
any features that cannot be expressed in Aristotle's syllogisms --
the world's first controlled natural language. (018)
> A single ontology representation language is not necessarily
> convenient for modelling all domains. It may be useful to
> have several ontology representation languages available to
> the ontology designer... (019)
Absolutely! Tim emphasized that kind of diversity. He also
recognized the need for a highly expressive logic. SWeLL went
far beyond OCL to include propositional, first-order, and higher-
order logic. All other logics would be defined by and/or translated
to SWeLL. (020)
A lot has happened since 2002. I wouldn't endorse every detail
of these two documents or of Tim's original proposal. But a
Semantic Web based on them (or the other million Google hits)
would be very different from what we have today, and I believe
it could be vastly more successful. (021)
We can't turn back the clock. But we can develop new strategies
that build on the best of what's available from *all* sources.
Instead of defining more standards, we need to support Tim's
original goals of diversity, heterogeneity, and interoperability. (022)
John (023)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (024)
|