Thank you Elisa - Evan Wallace also provided a slideshow, gradually gaining and
understanding of what this is and the possibilities. Regards, Deborah
(01)
DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA
Specifications and Research
(02)
Cannon Design
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(03)
Direct Line 703 907 2353
4 Digit Dial 2353
(04)
dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cannondesign.com
(05)
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
(06)
-----Original Message-----
From: Elisa Kendall [mailto:ekendall@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 4:23 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Cc: MacPherson, Deborah
Subject: [BULK] Re: [ontology-summit] ODM [was - Re: Re: Invitation to a
brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit]
Importance: Low
(07)
Hi Deborah and all,
(08)
First, thanks Cecil, Ravi and Peter for the pointers - I have only been
following the discussion intermittently, due to family commitments, so I
appreciate the assistance. Evan provided some information to you off list, but
for others who may be interested, here is a quick summary of where we are.
(09)
The Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM), which was adopted as an OMG standard
in 2006 and finalized in May 2009, does indeed provide the foundation for
transformations from RDF, RDFS and OWL to UML and back, among others. It
includes metamodels for the semantic web languages as well as for Topic Maps
and Common Logic (the Common Logic metamodel is identical to the one in the
current ISO 24707 specification, and the Topic Maps metamodel is quite close to
the ISO TM specification, though not identical at this point in their
evolution). These can be used for model interchange, and provide an XML
serialization that is intended to be interoperable across UML tools. It also
includes profiles - which are fairly well aligned with the metamodels, though
the RDF/S and OWL profiles are a bit closer to supporting OWL 2 than the
metamodels at present. These profiles are used to annotate UML models so that
we can import and export RDFS and OWL without loss of fidelity, so they
actually extend UML to provide features that Cecil mentions below.
(010)
The Revision Task Force (RTF) has been working for a couple of years now to
eliminate usability issues and extend the ODM to support OWL 2 -- we anticipate
a new ODM 1.1, with some of the necessary updates to support OWL 2 (profile and
RDF mapping metamodel revisions) in the first half of next year (depending on
OMG publication schedules), and a second revision, ODM 1.2 to incorporate an
OWL 2 functional specification based metamodel in addition to the RDF mapping
approach currently in the standard. The 1.2 specification will also include a
revision to the chapter Cecil refers to, which specifies a mapping from UML to
OWL, reflecting modifications for OWL 2 and related transformation support.
We don't yet have a target date for the 1.2 specification, but please feel free
to contact Evan or me from time to time next year for progress on that.
(011)
With respect to implementation, a number of folks have implemented parts of the
specification for various purposes - the CL metamodel was used by
OntologyWorks, now HighFleet, to generate java APIs, for example. SRI, the EDM
Council, and others have used the profiles to create home-grown tools for
ontology editing and diagram development purposes, and we
(Sandpiper) have tools that implement the profiles for several UML platforms.
Adaptive is also integrating the ODM metamodels in their MOF repository for
model asset management, governance, and transformation.
JPL has done extensive work to map SysML to OWL using the specification as well
as additional work on the OWL 2 metamodel that will be incorporated in the
standard next year. I learn that others have done things with the standard on
a daily basis, so I'm fairly certain that there are more implementations I
don't know about.
(012)
I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to get in touch, off list, if you'd
like to talk further about it.
(013)
Happy Holidays,
(014)
Elisa
(015)
On 12/17/2010 9:17 AM, MacPherson, Deborah wrote:
> Thanks Peter !
>
>
>
> DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA
> Specifications and Research
>
> Cannon Design
> 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900
> Arlington, Virginia 22209
>
> Direct Line 703 907 2353
> 4 Digit Dial 2353
>
> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> cannondesign.com
>
> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter
> Yim
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 11:52 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> Subject: [ontology-summit] ODM [was - Re: Re: Invitation to a
> brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit]
>
> Deborah and All,
>
> For those who weren't with us then ... this may be a good starting point.
> See ElisaKendall's presentation at:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_09_08#nidE
> WF
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:31 AM, MacPherson,
>Deborah<dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Ravi
>>
>>
>>
>> I need to learn more about the ODM activities - is this related to
>> the meeting and OMG work discussed at NSF a couple weeks ago?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Deborah
>>
>>
>>
>> DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA
>>
>> Specifications and Research
>>
>>
>>
>> Cannon Design
>>
>> 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900
>>
>> Arlington, Virginia 22209
>>
>>
>>
>> Direct Line 703 907 2353
>>
>> 4 Digit Dial 2353
>>
>>
>>
>> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> cannondesign.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ravi
>> sharma
>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:16 AM
>> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BULK] Re: [BULK] Re: Invitation to a
>> brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
>>
>>
>>
>> Deborah
>>
>> I assumed you might be following the ODM activities.
>>
>> ODM efforts allow for interoperation bet ween RDF OWL and MOF UML.
>> Please refer to Elisa Kendall (Chair), Evan Wallace and our work on ODM
>under OMG.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Ravi
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:55 AM, MacPherson, Deborah
>> <dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Cecil
>>
>> Actually I believe someone else said ”You can translate any OWL
>> ontology to UML, but not vice-versa". I've only been talking about
>> the NIEM data model and applications to the building industry
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Deborah
>>
>>
>> DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA
>> Specifications and Research
>>
>> Cannon Design
>> 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900
>> Arlington, Virginia 22209
>>
>> Direct Line 703 907 2353
>> 4 Digit Dial 2353
>>
>> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> cannondesign.com
>>
>> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cecil O.
>> Lynch, MD, MS
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:11 AM
>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
>>
>> Subject: [BULK] Re: [ontology-summit] [BULK] Re: Invitation to a
>> brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
>> Importance: Low
>>
>> Deborah,
>>
>> Can you explain your statement "You can translate any OWL ontology to
>> UML, but not vice-versa."
>>
>> The OMG Ontology Definition Metamodel specification seems to
>> contradict your statement. Table 16.12 of the specification lists the
>> OWL features with no equivalent UML feature as :
>>
>>
>> Thing, global properties, autonomous individual' allValuesFrom,
>> someValuesFrom, SymmetricProperty, TransitiveProperty, Classes as
>> instances, disjointWith, complementOf
>>
>> Cecil Lynch
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> MacPherson, Deborah
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:48 AM
>> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
>> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [ontology-summit] [BULK] Re: Invitation to a
>> brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
>>
>> These all sound like good points to include in the communique and
>> announcement for the summit theme
>>
>>
>>
>> DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA
>> Specifications and Research
>>
>> Cannon Design
>> 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900
>> Arlington, Virginia 22209
>>
>> Direct Line 703 907 2353
>> 4 Digit Dial 2353
>>
>> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> cannondesign.com
>>
>> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
>> Sowa
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:53 PM
>> To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [BULK] Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming
>> call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
>> Importance: Low
>>
>> Deborah, Matthew, Ahsan, Steve, Ali, Nicola, and Jack,
>>
>> DMcP:
>>> In your view is it even possible for model-driven exchange
>>> environments to succeed without including ontologies?
>> MW:
>>> I would argue that databases are willy nilly ontologies, since they
>>> make statements about the sorts of things there are, and some rules
>>> that govern them. Perhaps more importantly a database can be a very
>>> suitable implementation environment for an ontology, depending on
>>> what your purposes are.
>> I agree with Matthew. In the 1970s, DB designers were discussing
>> very similar issues about ontology that we are talking about here.
>>
>> Type hierarchies, E-R diagrams, and Petri nets were used in the
>> 1960s, they were adopted by the DB community, and they are part of the UML
>collection.
>> In fact, UML diagrams are probably the most widely used notation
>> for ontologies on planet earth. UML plus OCL (the object- constraint
>> language) provides a *superset* of OWL, but in a much more readable
>notation.
>>
>> The programming community is already familiar with UML diagrams,
>> which provide representations for type hierarchies, for the type
>> constraints and cardinality constraints on relations, for time
>> dependencies in activity diagrams, etc. If more expressive power is
>> needed, UML also includes OCL as a general-purpose notation for FOL.
>>
>> That is far more expressive power in a far more readable format than OWL.
>> You can translate any OWL ontology to UML, but not vice-versa.
>>
>> AM:
>>> What do you think about SKOS-XL instead OWL for building ontology?
>> I have no objection to anybody using whatever tools they find useful.
>> But it shows that OWL is a very difficult language to learn and use
>> effectively. Much simpler languages supplemented with diagrams would
>> be very attractive to many users.
>>
>> SW:
>>> Would that I had a nickel for every time I've seen someone
>>> misinterpret a "controlled English" sentence.
>> I'd be delighted to take that bet, provided that you give me a penny
>> for every time I've seen somebody misinterpret a statement in some
>> formal language (logic, programming language, etc.).
>>
>> Please note that COBOL is a rather poor example of what can be done
>> with English-like syntax, but it was the most widely used programming
>> language during the second half of the 20th century.
>>
>> SW:
>>> My conclusion, then, is that end users are likely to understand the
>>> benefits of ontologies well before programmers.
>> Programmers and database administrators understood the need for
>> ontologies since the 1970s. But they called them conceptual schemas,
>> structured analysis and design, etc.
>>
>> SW:
>>> The model in question is IDEF1-X. Information exchange is based on
>>> database replication...
>> That's ontology! Note Matthew's comment and my response.
>>
>> AH:
>>> The argument I've used (with limited, but notable success) with the
>>> programmers around me, is that an ontology can also serve as a
>>> contract between the software development team and each module.
>> I agree. And the people who were designing software development
>> tools in the 1970s used very similar arguments. The only missing
>> jargon was the word 'ontology'. Instead, they used terms like
>> 'specification' or 'conceptual schema' or even 'IDEF1X'.
>>
>> AH:
>>> Fleshing out these different roles would be instrumental in helping
>>> focus and identifying the different types of supporting arguments.
>> MB:
>>> Another way of framing this is that every application has an
>>> ontology anyway. The question is how it is framed, if at all. Are
>>> the meanings of terms resident only in the head of the developer, or
>>> in some logical model with written term definitions (weak semantics)
>>> or in a formal language which> grounds the meanings of terms with
>>> reference to some logical formalism?
>> I agree with both of those statements. And I encourage anybody who
>> has been using OWL to take another look at UML. For most of what
>> they do with OWL, they could specify much more clearly with UML.
>>
>> SW:
>>> It's probably better to think of every application having multiple
>>> views of data. The view that is presented to the user may differ
>>> significantly from the view that's in memory, which in turn may
>>> differ from the view that's persisted.
>> I strongly agree. And that's another argument for UML as a better
>> ontology language than OWL. The various diagrams give you multiple
>> views of the subject. But OWL is designed to enforce tunnel vision.
>>
>> SW:
>>> The case to make is that the OWL model of information is more "natural"
>>> than the relational model, so the application developer spends less
>>> time and effort translating a business model to OWL than to SQL.
>> SQL happens to be a very primitive version of the relational model.
>> Ted Codd was not happy about the SQL version of relational semantics.
>> In 1979, Codd and Date made a strong case for adding a type hierarchy
>> in the RM/T extensions. In fact, I assumed a type hierarchy in my
>> first published article on conceptual graphs in 1976:
>>
>> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/cg1976.pdf
>> Conceptual Graphs for a Database Interface
>>
>> NG:
>>> Deciding how much effort to put in developing a particular ontology
>>> is a crucial choice, and it is very important to distinguish the
>>> cases where a proper ontological analysis pays off, and is indeed a
>>> crucial aspect of success, from those where a "lightweight" approach
>>> is sufficient.
>> I agree. In fact, there is a great deal of informal analysis that
>> must be done before it's possible to write any kind of formal specification.
>>
>> JR:
>>> How about engaging them in a survey to estimate the cost of "IT Babel"
>>> in their respective enterprises? We might even mention the trillion
>>> dollar elephant in the room --- insecure systems.
>> That is indeed a serious problem. People have been talking about it
>> since the 1970s. The only thing new is that the word 'ontology' has
>> been thrown into the pot. But talking has not solved the problems.
>>
>> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
(016)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (017)
|