SC32/WG2 N
ISO/IEC WD 19763-3MMF Ontology Registration
He Keqing and OKABE, Masao
Project editor
MMF Ontology Registration
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32 WG2 Berlin Meeting
2005/04/18, 20
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 2
SC32/WG2 N
About this document
All the materials in this documents are prepared by all the active members of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration project.
Japan; Hajime Horiuchi (Tokyo International Univ.) Masao Okabe (Project editor, TEPCO) Masaharu Obayashi (K-three)
China; He Keqing (Project editor, SKLSE, Wuhan Univ.) He Yangfan (SKLSE, Wuhan Univ.) Wang Chong (SKLSE, Wuhan Univ.)
Korea; Doo-Kwon Baik (Korea Univ.) Sam Oh (Sungkyunkwan Univ.)
2005-04-18 MMF Ontology Registration project 3
SC32/WG2 N
Status Report after Xi’An WG2 meeting resolutions dated 2004-5-28
2nd WD was posted on 2004-10-25 (SC32 N1177)
Resolutions from Washington WG2 interim meeting in November, 2005 (SC32 N1225, WG2N0709)
Resolution WG 02 / 4: 19763-3 editorship
To change the Editors of 19763-3 to be: HE, Keqing & OKABE, Masao.
Resolution WG 02 / 5: 19763-3 title
To change the title of 19763-3 from "Metamodel for ontologies"
to "Metamodel for ontology registration“
These resolutions will be adopted by SC32 at this SC32 closing plenary.
3rd WD was posted on 2005-4-5 (SC32N1258)
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 4
SC32/WG2 N
Main refinements from 2nd WD
Simpler metamodelAll the metaclasses in the 2nd WD were re-examined and as a result,
the metamodel in the 3rd WD becomes simpler. It consists of , mainly,
Reference_Ontology, Reference_Ontology_Component, Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct,
Local_Ontology, Local_Ontology_Component, Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct, and
Ontology_Language
No underling ontology description language In the 2nd WD, description logic was an underlying language that des
cribes an ontology. In the 3rd WD, there is no such a language so that it can be applied to
a more variety of ontologies.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 5
SC32/WG2 N
Basic Policy and Idea
Basic Policy Minimal specifications at the first step
should be extended on the requirements from actual industrial use at the next step
Basic Idea
1. distinguish two types of ontologies. Reference Ontology and Local Ontology.
2. have only a very simple structure
so that it can be applied to a variety of ontologies,
almost independent of ontology description language. Ontology – Ontology Component – Ontology Atomic Construct
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 6
SC32/WG2 N
Outline
Objectives
Basic idea 1
Basic idea 2
Metamodel
Relation to ODM
Examples
Summary
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 7
SC32/WG2 N
Objectives
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 8
SC32/WG2 N
What MMF Ontology Registration will do
Objectives To promote interoperability based on ontologies.
Obstacles to ontology-based interoperationProblem1
Each ontology is developed independently and evolves autonomously.Problem2
Ontologies are described in several languages,
sometimes with different names for the same thing in UoD
or with the same name for different things in UoD.
MMF Ontology Registration solves these problems, providing the registration framework of ontologies.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 9
SC32/WG2 N
Basic idea 1To solve problem1
Each ontology is developed independently and evolves autonomously.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 10
SC32/WG2 NDifficulty caused by independent development and autonomous evolution
This ontology has a definition of ‘green card’ and does not have a definition of ‘Christmas card’.
This ontology does not have a definition of ‘green card’ but has a definition of ‘Christmas card’.
Ontology for application system A
Ontology forapplication system B
Agent A Agent BGive me a ‘green card’.
Green card???I can give you a Christmas card.
Christmas card???
To avoid this difficulty, MMF Ontology Registration provides two types of ontologies, Reference Ontology and Local Ontology.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 11
SC32/WG2 N
Reference ontology and local ontology
Reference Ontology3
Local Ontology for application system
A
Local Ontology for application system
BLocal ontology : localized ontology for some application system based on reference ontologiesrelatively unstable and evolves autonomously and continuously.
Reference Ontology: standardized ontology for some business domain pre-defined and relatively stable
Reference Ontology1
Reference Ontology2
・・・
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 12
SC32/WG2 N
With Reference Ontology
Green Card is definedin terms ofReference Ontology
Christmas card is definedin terms ofReference Ontology.
Reference Ontology
LocalOntology for application system A
LocalOntology for application system B
Card is …Certification is …
Agent A Agent B
Color is …Green is …
Give me a green card.
What is a green card?Is it a Christmas card whose color is green?
No. A green card is a certification of working in the U.S.
OK. I understand. Then, I do not have a green card.
MMF Ontology Registration provides the registration framework where a local ontology is defined based on reference ontologies
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 13
SC32/WG2 N
Basic idea 2To solve Problem2
Ontologies are described in several languages,
sometimes with different names for the same thing in UoD
or with the same name for different things in UoD.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 14
SC32/WG2 N
Many ontology description languagesXML(SGML)-family
OWL, Topic Maps, XCL
Common Logic-family KIF, CGIF, XCL
Description Logic-family SNOMED-CT, OWL ALC(D), SHOQ(D), SHIF(D), SHOIN(D) etc.
Others UML, Entity-relationship model
In OMG ODM (Ontology Definition Metamodel), these models are treated as ontologies.
Note Many of them are some kind of standards,such as International standards, W
3C recommendations, OMG specifications.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 15
SC32/WG2 N
The reality is,…Common Logic is excellent because
it has several dialects with concrete syntax such as KIF, CGIF and XCL. practically it can almost describe second order things in the first-order frame
work.
OWL has much popularity Some W3C person said , “ In the near future, all ontologies will be translated
into OWL.”
But, the reality is; There are not many ontolgies described in CL.
There are several described in traditional KIF. It is not realistic that all ontologies are translated into OWL.
At least, ontologies using predicate with arity n(>2) cannot be translated into OWL.
Looser harmonization is necessary
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 16
SC32/WG2 N
Common basic structure of ontology
A very simplified but common three granularity level structure is;
An ontology consists of sentences.
e.g. Example_Ontology consists of Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony) Buyer(Tony) Creditrating(Credit-A)
A sentence consists of symbols.e.g. Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony) consists of Buyer has logical symbols , , (and variables )
Creditrating Tony
Ontology
Sentence
Symbol
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 17
SC32/WG2 N
MMF Ontology Registration structure(1)MMF Ontology Registration consists of
Ontology, Ontology Component, Ontology Atomic Construct
that correspond to ontology, sentence, symbol * respectively
and that haveadministrative information ** of its correspondentstructural information of this levela reference to its correspondent, for further semantics, if necessary
Note* : Logical symbols such as , , and variables are ignored.
**: inherited from Administered Item of ISO/IEC 19763-3 MDR ,
such as registration authority, creation date etc.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 18
SC32/WG2 N
MMF Ontology Registration structure(2)
e.g.
Administrative information etc.
corresponding to Example_Ontology
e.g.
Administrative information etc.
corresponding to each of Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony) Buyer(Tony) Creditrating(Credit-A)
e.g.
Administrative information etc.
corresponding to of each Buyer has Creditrating
Tony
Ontology +administrative info.
Ontology Component +administrative info
Ontology Atomic Construct +administrative info
MMF Ontology RegistrationActual Ontology
Ontology
Sentence
Symbol
reference
consistOf
use
reference
reference
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 19
SC32/WG2 N
View from of ontology description languages
expression
termsentence(in a broad sense)
definitionsentence (or clause)(in a narrow sense)
composite term Atomic term
logical symbol(in a broad sense)
logical symbol(in a narrow sense)
variable
unary predicate(or concept)
N-nary predicate(or role, relation)
sentence letter(o-ary predicate)
predicate
Almost any FOLs have these hierarchies.This corresponds to Ontology Component
This corresponds to Ontology Atomic Construct
individual(or object)
symbol
non logical symbol
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 20
SC32/WG2 N
Example : SUMOOntology
Administrative information etc. corresponding to SUMO at http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/
Ontology Component Administrative information etc. corresponding to
(=> (and (instance ?LANG AnimalLanguage) (agent ?PROC ?AGENT) (instrument ?PROC ?LANG)) (and (instance ?AGENT Animal) (not (instance ?AGENT Human)))), etc….
This is in KIF and in English, If lang is an instance of animal language and proc is an agent of agent and lang is an instrument for proc, then agent is an instance of animal and agent is not an instance of human.
Ontology Atomic Construct Administrative information etc. corresponding to
instance, agent, instrument, … Note: these are binary relations.AnimalLanguage, Animal, Human,… Note: these are concepts.
Note: ?LANG, ?PROC, ?AGENT are variables and not individuals.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 21
SC32/WG2 N
Example : OWL Wine Ontology (1/2)Ontolgy
Administrative information etc. corresponding to a whole ontology ‘wine.xml’ at http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
Ontology_Component Administrative information etc. corresponding to <owl:Class rdf:ID="WhiteWine">
<owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Wine" /> <owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor" /> <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#White" />
</owl:Restriction>
</owl:intersectionOf>
</owl:Class> , <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasVintageYear">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;FunctionalProperty" /><rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Vintage" /> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#VintageYear" />
</owl:ObjectProperty> , etc…
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 22
SC32/WG2 N
Example : OWL Wine Ontology (2/2)
Ontology Atomic ConstructAdministrative information etc. corresponding toWhiteWine,Collection, Wine, hasColor, White, hasVintageYear,FunctionalProperty,Vintage,VintageYear, etc…
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 23
SC32/WG2 N
Metamodel
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 24
SC32/WG2 N
Core portion of MMF Ontology Registration metamodel
Reference Ontology: standardized ontology for some business domain relatively stable
Local Ontology : localized ontology for some application system based on Reference Ontologies relatively unstable and evolves autonomously
Reference Ontology
Reference Ontology Component
Reference Ontology Atomic Construct
Local Ontology
0:*0:1Local Ontology Component
Local Ontology Atomic Construct0:1 0:*
sameAs
sameAs
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 25
SC32/WG2 N
Whole metamodel of MMF Ontology Registration
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 26
SC32/WG2 N
Relation to OMG ODM
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 27
SC32/WG2 N
Scope of MMF Ontology Registration
MMF Core
MMF Ontology registration
Ontology registry
for application system B
Ontology B
Ontology Registration
Information for Ontology A
Registration Info. C
Ontology registration
information for ontology B
Registration Info. B
Scope of MMF Ontology registration
Standardizedontology
repository
for application system C
Ontology C
for application system A
Ontology A
...StandardizOntology
Repository
Standardizedontology
repository
Ontology registration
information for ontology A
Registration Info. A
...
Interoperation Applicationsystem B
ApplicatioSystem AApplication
system A
Scope of specifications such as ODM
MMF Core
MMF Ontology registration
Ontology registry
for application system B
Ontology B
for application system B
Ontology B
Ontology Registration
Information for Ontology A
Registration Info. C
Ontology registration
information for ontology B
Registration Info. B
Scope of MMF Ontology registration
Standardizedontology
repository
Standardizedontology
repository
for application system C
Ontology C
for application system A
Ontology A
...for application system C
Ontology C
for application system A
Ontology A
...
.....StandardizOntology
Repository
Standardizedontology
repository
StandardizOntology
Repository
StandardizOntology
Repository
Standardizedontology
repository
Ontology registration
information for ontology A
Registration Info. A
...
.....
Interoperation Applicationsystem B
Applicationsystem B
ApplicatioSystem AApplicatioSystem AApplication
system A
Scope of specifications such as ODM
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 28
SC32/WG2 N
ODM for further semantics
For further semantics, MMF Ontology Registration has an interface with a repository that contains actual ontologies.
This repository is mainly assumed to be accommodated with ODM.
ODM(Ontology Definition Metamodel) is specifications under development by OMGspecifies
the following metamodels, using MOF(Meta Object Facility)–RDFS, OWL, Common Logic, Topic Maps, E/R model (normative), –Description Logic (informative)
UML profiles for them mappings among them and UML2
has XML-interface called XMI
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 29
SC32/WG2 N
Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM
Ontology
UML2 Metamodel
OWL/RDFS Metamodel
SCL Metamodel
ER Metamodel
TM Metamodel
DL Metamodel
Ontologydescribedin UML2
Ontologydescribedin OWL/RDFS
Ontologydescribedin SCL
Ontologydescribedin ER
Ontologydescribedin TM
Ontologydescribedin DL
Ontology Component
Atomic_Onto_Construct
ODM:Ontologythat has a suitable interface
MMF Ontology Registration
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 30
SC32/WG2 N
Exampleto show how MMF Ontology Registration works
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 31
SC32/WG2 N
Example1 : example description (1 of 2)Reference ontologies
RO1 Buyer has.Creditrating Buyer(Anthony) Creditrating(Credit-A) has(Anthony, Credit-A)
Local ontology LO1
Buyer(Tony) Creditrating(Credit-A) has(Tony, Credit-A) hasProblem(Tony, A) About(A, Credit-A)
RO2 (hasProblem Anthony A) (Email B) (Send Anthony B Jerry)
LO2 (Buyer Anthony) (Email B) (Send Anthony, B, Jerry) (About B A)
Note This example illustrates how MMF Ontology Registration can work in different syntaxes and different names (sy
mbols) . It is out of the scope of this example whether ‘Buyer(Anthony)’ or ‘(Send Anthony B Jerry)’ are actually appropri
ate for Reference ontologies or not.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 32
SC32/WG2 N
Example1 : example description (2 of 2)
Note(continued) LO1 and LO1 are described in DL. RO2 and LO2 are described in KIF. All Ontology_Atomic_Constructs are supposed to have the same namespace.
LO1 is mainly based on RO1 and RO2, but LO1 locally uses a name ‘Tony’ for ‘Anthony’ in RO1 and RO2. A new knowledge ‘About(A, Credit-A)’ is added locally.
LO2 is mainly based on RO1 and RO2, but A new knowledge ‘(About B A) is added locally.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 33
SC32/WG2 N
Example1:Without Reference Ontology
Local Ontology LO1
Local Ontology LO2
Agent A of the application system based on LO1
Agent B of the application system based on LO2
Tell me to whom Tony sent an e-mail?
Tony??? I do not know Tony.
Buyer(Tony) Creditrating(Credit-A) has(Tony, Credit-A) hasProblem(Tony, A) About(A, Credit-A)
What is the worse,
it is difficult for agent A to find agent B who has the answer.
(Buyer Anthony) (Email B) (Send Anthony B Jerry) (About B A)
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 34
SC32/WG2 N
Example1: with Reference Ontology
Local Ontology LO1
Local Ontology LO2
Tell me to whom Tony sent an e-mail?
Hmm.. Tony is Anthony. So, the answer is to Jerry.
Agent of MMF Ontology Registrationtells agent A that agent B can answer it.
MMF Ontology Registration
Agent A of the application system based on LO1
Agent B of the application system based on LO2
Reference Ontolog
y RO1
Reference Ontolog
y RO2
Buyer(Tony) Creditrating(Credit-A) has(Tony, Credit-A) hasProblem(Tony, A) About(A, Credit-A)
(Buyer Anthony) (Email B) (Send Anthony B Jerry) (About B A)
Reference Ontology RO1 RO2
Local Ontology LO1 LO2
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 35
SC32/WG2 N
Example1:Object Diagram of MMF Ontology Registration
<Ontology_Atomic_Construct> <Ontology_Component> <Ontology>
RO2
RO1
Credit-A
hasProblem
A
Anthony
Creditrating
has
Buyer
B
Jerry
Send
About
Tony
Buyer(Tony)
has(Tony, Credit-A)
hasProblem(Tony, A)
LO1
About(A, Credit-A)
Buyer has.Creditrating
Creditrating(Credit-A)
has(Anthony, Credit-A)
(Send Anthony B Jerry)
Buyer(Anthony)
(About B A)
(hasProblem Anthony A)
(Email B)
LO2
(Buyer Anthony)
Legend:
Reference_
Local_ for LO1
Local_ for LO2
sameAs
sameAs
sameAs
sameAs
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 36
SC32/WG2 N
SummaryMMF Ontology Registration mainly consists of
Reference_Ontology, Reference_Ontology_Component, Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct,
Local_Ontology, Local_Ontology_Component, Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct, and
Ontology_Language
Each of them (except Ontology_Language) has administrative information structural information of this level (except Ontology_Atomic_Construct) a reference to the actual one
Local_Ontology_Component and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct may have ‘samsAs’ relation to Reference_Ontology_Component and Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct respectively.
For further semantics, MMF Ontology Registration relies on mainly ODM.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 37
SC32/WG2 N
Thank you for your attention.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 38
SC32/WG2 N
AnnexMore realistic example using ‘OWL Wine’ as a reference ontology.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 39
SC32/WG2 N
Premise(1)
Suppose that
‘owl-wine’ ontology is registered as a reference ontology
in MMF Ontology Registration registry.
Reference_Ontology
owl-wine: Reference_Ontology
+administrative information: ‘owl-wine’ authority etc.
+URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
+consistOf: all OIDs of Souce_Ontology_Component at next slide
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 40
SC32/WG2 N
Premise(2)
Reference_Ontology_Component
…………
Suppose that all the sentences in ‘owl-wine’ are labeled from C1 to C857 at some granularity.
MMF Ontology Registration does not specify the granularity of sentences. It is basically user’s choice.
C1: Reference_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘owl-wine’ authority etc.
+namespace: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
+use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in this components
C857: Reference_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘owl-wine’ authority etc.
+ namespace: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
+ use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in this component
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 41
SC32/WG2 N
Premise(3)
Reference_Ontology_Atomic_ConstructWine: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
+administrative information: ‘owl-wine’ authority etc.
+ namespace:http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
PotableLiquid: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
+administrative information: ‘owl-wine’ authority etc.
+ namespace: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food
etc. All symbols whose name space is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
etc. All symbols in owl_wine whose name space is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food.If owl_food is registered before owl_wine, owl_wine re-use these symbols in owl_food.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 42
SC32/WG2 N
Case1(1)
Some liquor shop owner wants to create a local ontology called ‘my-wine1’ for his liquor shop based on ‘owl-wine’.
He knows owl well. So he decides to use owl. He creates ‘my-wine1’ in his PC server.But, since almost everything is the same as ‘owl-wine’,
he imports ‘owl-wine’ in his ‘my-wine1’ and adds his own knowledge.
Then, he registered ‘my-wine1’ as a local ontology in MMF Ontology Registration registry.
This is a typical case that all Reference_Ontology_Components and Reference_Ontolgy_Atomic_Constructs are re-used.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 43
SC32/WG2 N
Case1(2)Local_Ontology
Local_Ontology_Component
Suppose L1 is the only knowledge he wants to add and L1 is ‘myWine is a subclass of Wine’
my-wine: Local_Ontology
+administrative information: ‘my-wine1’ authority etc.
+URI: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine1
+consistOf: all OIDs of Souce_Ontology_Component ‘Cxx’ of ‘owl-wine’ and OID of Local_Ontology_Component ‘L0’ below.
L0: Local_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘my-wine1’ authority etc.
+namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine1
+use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘myWine’ at next silde.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 44
SC32/WG2 N
Case1(3)
Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
These 3 meta-objects are the only meta-objects registered for the local ontology ‘my-wine’.
myWine: Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
+administrative information: ‘my-wine1’ authority etc.
+namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine1
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 45
SC32/WG2 N
Case2(1)Some liquor shop owner wants to create a local ontology called ‘my-win
e2’ for his liquor shop based on ‘owl-wine’.
But he does not know OWL but knows KIF well. So, he creates ‘my-wine2’ on his PC server the following way.First, he download ‘owl-win’ from http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031
209/wine to his PC server.Second, he transforms ‘owl-wine’ on his PC server to KIF.
Symbol names of ‘owl-wine’ conforms KIF syntax. So, he uses symbol names unchanged.
Finally, he adds his own knowledge and names it ‘my-wine2’.
Then, he registered ‘my-wine2’ as a local ontology in MMF Ontology Registration registry.
This is a typical case that none of Reference_Ontology_Components is re-used but all Reference_Ontolgy_Atomic_Constructs are re-used.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 46
SC32/WG2 N
Case2(2)Local_Ontology
Local_Ontology_Component
Suppose L0 is the only knowledge he wants to add and L0 is ‘myWine is a subclass of Wine’
my-wine2: Local_Ontology
+administrative information: ‘my-wine2’ authority etc.
+URI: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine2
+consistOf: all OID of Local_Ontology_Component ‘L0’ – ‘L857’ at this slide and next slide.
L0: Local_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘my-wine2’ authority etc.
+namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine2
+use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘myWine’ at next silde.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 47
SC32/WG2 N
Case2(3)
Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
Lxx: Local_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘my-wine2’ authority etc.
+namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine2
+use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in this component
(same as OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in ‘Cxx’)
+sameAs:OID of Reference_Ontology_Component ‘Cxx’
Note: xx= 1 - 857
myWine: Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
+administrative information: ‘my-wine2’ authority etc.
+namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine2
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 48
SC32/WG2 N
Case3(1)Some liquor shop owner wants to create a local ontology called ‘my-wine3’
for his liquor shop based on ‘owl-wine’.
He knows owl well. He decides to use owl.First, he downloads ‘owl-wine’ from http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031
209/wine to his PC server since his network environment is not good.Second, he added his own knowledge to the downloaded ‘owl-wine’ and n
ames it ‘my-wine3’. But, he does not change nasmespace URIs and a base URI such as http://
www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine to be consistent with ‘owl-wine’.
Then, he registered ‘my-wine’ as a local ontology in MMF Ontology Registration registry.
This is also the case that none of Reference_Ontology_Components is re-used but all Reference_Ontolgy_Atomic_Constructs are re-used.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 49
SC32/WG2 N
Case3(2)Local_Ontology
Local_Ontology_Component
Suppose C0 is the only knowledge he wants to add and C0 is ‘myWine is a subclass of Wine’
my-wine3: Local_Ontology
+administrative information: ‘my-wine3’ authority etc.
+URI: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine3
+consistOf: all OIDs of Local_Ontology_Component ‘C0’ – ‘C857’ at next slide.
C0: Local_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘my-wine3’ authority etc.
+namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine3
+use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘myWine’ at next slide.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 50
SC32/WG2 N
Case3(3)
Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
Cxx: Local_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘my-wine3’ authority etc.
+namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine3
+use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in this component(same as OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in ‘Cxx ‘ at http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine)
+sameAs:OID of Reference_Ontology_Component ‘Cxx’ with namespace: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
Note: xx= 1 - 857
myWine: Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
+administrative information: ‘my-wine3’ authority etc.
+namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine3
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 51
SC32/WG2 N
Case4(1)Some liquor shop owner wants to create a local ontology called ‘my-wine4’
for his liquor shop based on ‘owl-wine’.
He knows owl well. He decides to use owl.First, he downloads ‘owl-wine’ from http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031
209/wine to his PC server since his network environment is not good.Second, he added his own knowledge to the downloaded ‘owl-wine’ and n
ames it ‘my-wine4’. Third, he changes nasmespace URIs and a base URI to http://www.my-own-P
C-server/my-wine4 except xmlns:owl, rdfs, rdf, xsd to be able to maintain everything by himself.
Then, he registered ‘my-wine’ as a local ontology in MMF Ontology Registration repository.
In this case, none of Reference_Ontology_Components nor Reference_Ontolgy_Atomic_Constructs are re-used.
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 52
SC32/WG2 N
Case4(2)Local_Ontology
Local_Ontology_Component
Suppose C0 is the only knowledge he wants to add and C0 is ‘myWine is a subclass of Wine’
my-wine4: Local_Ontology
+administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
+URI: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
+consistOf: all OID of Local_Ontology_Component ‘C0’ – ‘C857’ at next slide
C0: Local_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
+namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
+use: OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and ‘myWine’ at next slide
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 53
SC32/WG2 N
Case4(3)
Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
Cxx: Local_Ontology_Component
+administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
+namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
+sameAs:OID of Reference_Ontology_Component ‘Cxx’ at http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
+use: OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomic_Constructs at next silide used in this component
Note: xx= 1 - 857
myWine: Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construc
+administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
+namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 54
SC32/WG2 N
Case4(4)
Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct (continued)Wine : Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
+administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
same_as: OID of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ with namespace: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
etc.
PotableLiquid: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
+administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
+namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
+sameAs:OID of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘PotableLiquid’ with namespace http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food
etc. etc.
Top Related