Evan,
Offline question:
Do you know of a publicly available utility that translates OWL into KIF
or any other CL-compliant language? (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oor-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan Wallace
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 3:51 PM
> To: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion
> Subject: [oor-forum] Thoughts on OOR architecture possibilities
>
>
> I have seen little discussion exploring architectures for an OOR.
> Perhaps this
> is because the requirements are still in flux. Still, I think we can
> safely make
> some assumptions about minimum requirements and start exploring
> options.
> The remainder of this email does just this.
>
> ***************************************************************
>
> Open Ontology Repository Architecture possibilities
>
>
> Bare minimum requirements:
>
> 1) Need to support ontologies in at least OWL and Common Logic (CL).
> 2) Need to provide means for users to Discover content via browsing
> and query of exposed elements of the content and metadata related
> to
> that content.
> 3) Need to serve content reliably in an appropriate standard exchange
> form
> and using protocols associated with each content type.
> 4) Need to provide persistent and available access to this content
> and associated metadata for multiple versions as the content
> evolves.
>
> I would characterize requirements 1 and 2 as requirements on a
> Registry functionality and 3 and 4 as requirements on a Repository
> functionality of an OOR.
>
> Below I discuss some possible architectures for an OOR to meet these
> requirements. I am somewhat familiar with ebXML RegRep and XMDR, so
> below are some architectures for repositories that would use these
> specifications. There may well be other, as good or better,
> alternatives. If there are, people should decribe them as well, so
> that we can flesh out all the alternatives and compare them.
>
> Some possible OOR architectures:
>
> A) Reuse and extend OMV infrastructure to add CL specific
> enhancements. OMV already provides rich support for the above
> needs (not sure about version management) for OWL based content.
> This is built on an ebXML based RegistryRepository.
>
> B) Create a MOF (Meta Object Facility) profile for ebXML RegRep and
> then use metamodels defined in the OMG Ontology Management
> Metamodel
> (ODM) to store content.
> Would need to:
> - define models for related metadata (use and extend OMV?) which
> would work across supported content metamodels,
> - find or develop software to convert between MOF and exchange
> forms,
> - build query/browse front-end that works with content and
> metadata,
>
> C) Use an XMDR repository.
> Not sure what is needed to extend the infrastructure for XMDR (as
> described in Bruce's slides [1]) to meet the above requirements.
> XMDR should be able to support a range of forms for conceptual
> models including CL and OWL, but with OWL and RDF tools sprinkled
> around the diagram on slide 16, I am not sure if all functions
> would work on all formats. Clearly the MDR pedigree should mean
> excellent support for some kinds of metadata at both the model
> and model element level. But some extensions will be required to
> support language specific notions like Description Logic
> expressivity.
>
> D) Use multiple distinct infrastructures supporting different
> formats which would then be federated to appear as a single
> repository via one of any of number of mechanisms (redirection,
> front-ending by a single system, front-ending by a federation of
> systems each of which wrap specialized systems).
>
> We probably should create a set of questions to ask about each
> OOR alternative architecture, the answers to which could be used to
> evaluate the alternatives.
>
> BTW - I don't think that the OWL Lite profile for ebXML RegRep should
> be used for OOR. The profile provides both more and less than what
> we
> need even for managing OWL-only content and doesn't address any FOL
> content forms.
>
> BTW2 - There was some email discussion about exploiting the
> relationship of OWL as isomorphic with a fragment of First Order
> Logic
> to simplify some part of this infrastructure, say the Repository, by
> supporting only a FOL form (such as CL). This could work, but I am
> not sure that it buys you much. Most users and tools for OWL
> ontologies
> will want to browse, refer to, and import OWL forms so we will have
> to
> provide interfaces and export forms in OWL anyway. But we will have
> created the task of defining the fragment and dealing with new
> round-tripping
> issues that the transformations between OWL and this fragment will
> create.
> Also, will not the difference in semantics between OWL DL and OWL
> Full
> also
> complicate this approach?
>
> -Evan
>
> Evan K. Wallace
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> NIST
>
> [1]
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OpenOntologyRepository/2008-02-
> 28_Ontology-Repository-Landscape/XMDR-input-to-Open-Ontology-
> Registry_v2--BruceBargmeyer_20080228.pdf
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
> Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (05)
|