tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-75521071416222284242024-09-05T08:43:30.962-04:00Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-30675870161853449922010-01-31T13:57:00.000-05:002010-01-31T13:57:01.938-05:00

Wow, it's been a long time since I had time to write anything here. I need to get back into the habit. Today I found a really good approach that I think I will adopt for my own OWL profile for UML. Rather than transforming directly into and out of OWL, this approach is a model-to-model transformation from UML to the OWL metamodel of the ontology definition metamodel (ODM). This is a way that

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-16181815858516726112010-01-23T11:43:00.000-05:002010-01-23T11:43:12.892-05:00

I just read an excellent blog posting on the definition of an ontology: What is an ontology? | Ontogenesis. The only complaint I have is that the authors don't say anything about the difference between the real world and information about the real world or the difference between open world and closed world. This allows some database or OO designers to think they are building ontologies. For

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-88940176592708224592009-12-24T00:39:00.000-05:002009-12-24T00:39:03.424-05:00

One of the major differences between the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) and my UML profile for OWL is how associations are modeled. ODM treats the name of an association and its reading-order arrow as a property rather than the association ends. I find this rather odd. Not only are such models unusual, the UML specification itself uses no association names in its diagrams, except for the

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-31299325714357784872009-12-23T18:37:00.000-05:002009-12-23T18:37:59.657-05:00

Image by dullhunk via Flickr This is Part 3 of a multi-part series describing my profile for OWL. In this part I start to descend the stereotype hierarchy. This part of the descent is about the «Ontology» stereotype. Generally, an OWL ontology is a web accessible resource with a URL that is similar to a Web page. Sometimes a Web server builds this resource from statements in a triple store so

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-67505310123205617772009-12-19T17:38:00.002-05:002009-12-19T17:52:30.392-05:00

In another posting I mentioned the convention for capitalizing class names. I've been looking into this more deeply today, and I'm even more puzzled about how we got to where we are than I was when I started! The convention I've seen the most is UpperCamelCase, which I've seen in object-oriented programming languages, OWL, RDFS, and XML. Where did this convention come from, especially the

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-57066924955338642792009-12-18T21:54:00.000-05:002009-12-18T21:54:45.700-05:00

I just found a great blog entry about Modeling an Organization Using Enterprise Ontology. It was an enlightening read about something I thought to be true but have never seen expressed. Highly recommended for all enterprise architecture practitioners.

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-41211506805372924362009-12-18T21:49:00.000-05:002009-12-18T21:49:37.200-05:00

I just had a debate with an ontologist friend about whether or not an ontology is a kind of a taxonomy and a taxonomy is a kind of controlled vocabulary. I believe what is true in Formal Concept Analysis should be true in every ontology: every generalization must have fewer attributes than its specializations, and every specialization must have more attributes than its generalizations. If we

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-89709892426442461062009-12-17T00:45:00.003-05:002009-12-17T00:54:00.797-05:00

In my previous posting (Part 1), I introduced UML profiles to prepare for this posting. In this posting (Part 2), I will describe the top of the UML stereotype specialization hierarchy for defining an OWL ontology. In subsequent postings I plan to descend the specialization hierarchy and describe each specialization in detail. The top of the specialization hierarchy is the «RDF Resource»

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-79601801457258644672009-12-15T18:39:00.003-05:002009-12-17T00:53:19.083-05:00

As I mentioned previously, this is the first part of a multi-part description of an OWL profile for UML that I have developed. In contrast to the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM), which requires an ontologist to model in an unusual way, this profile allows an ontologist to mark up a normal UML model with stereotypes. This profile is not  standardized, although I hope to get it

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-34934651864612773642009-12-10T18:05:00.001-05:002009-12-10T18:07:18.457-05:00

Image via Wikipedia As I mentioned previously, UML 2, with a simple profile, can represent what an OWL 1 ontology can represent. There is a heavier-weight profile called the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM), but it requires me to model concepts in a different way. I prefer starting with standard UML, then augmenting that with additional semantics in the form of stereotypes. UML is a more

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-60632022878136731962009-12-09T02:32:00.004-05:002009-12-10T17:00:04.278-05:00

Image via Wikipedia In this post I ponder the definition of an ontology using the Semiotic Triangle as a guide. (Note that because business people do not understand what an ontology is, I prefer to call it a concept model.) I purposely gloss over the nitty gritty of taxonomy, generalization, specialization, dynamic classification, and so on, to focus on defining an ontology by what it provides to

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-35935379078232125272009-12-07T18:26:00.002-05:002009-12-07T18:35:59.483-05:00

In a model intended for business people I prefer to model states as subclasses. Some say this is not a good idea, but I'm going to give you what I think are some pretty compelling reasons for why it is. Modeling states as an enumeration is pretty standard, so I don't think I need to go into the details here. What I do want to go into is how subclasses are very similar, yet have more benefits.

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7552107141622228424.post-569027689193502452009-12-06T15:30:00.000-05:002009-12-06T16:22:32.779-05:00

This is a blog for people in the disparate information management community to come to terms and unify. I think it may be a long road, but over time it is achievable.I am very pragmatic and technology neutral because I grew into a role where I model, on the clock, the world as business subject matter experts see it. I embrace the OMG's Model Driven Architecture idea of separating concepts from

Jim Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163316200973217698noreply@blogger.com0