Document

MFI Ontology registration Ed2
~Toward ontology evolution management ~
OKABE, Masao
Co-editor
ISO/IEC 19763-3 MFI Ontology registration project
2007.12.07
Outline
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration ED2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
2
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
3
What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
ISO/IEC 19763-3 MFI Ontology registration Ed1
is a part of the Metamodel Framework Interoperability standards, and
was published as a IS on March 1st, 2007.
Metamodel Framework Interoperability project
is multi-part project intending to promote interoperability of
metamodels, models and ontologies etc.






Part 1 Reference model
Part 2 Core model
Part 3 Metamodel for ontology registration
Part 4 Metamodel for model mapping
Part 5 Metamodel for process models registration
Part 6 Registration
procedure
Participating Counties:
Main contributors:
2007/12/07
IS
FCD
IS, WD of Ed2 in preparation
CD
WD in preparation
Study Period
Canada, China, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.
China, Japan, Korea
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
4
Features of MFI Ontology registration
Features
Very simple specifications as a first step
 Think big, act samll!
Simple and generic structure, irrelevant to languages
–Ontology_Whole － Ontology_Component － Ontology_Atomic_Construct
Providing a framework to ensure trustiness
 Reference Ontology vs. Local Ontology
Using a MFI Ontology registration registry, we can at least
know what ontologies are there and whether they are trusty
or not and get a clue to reuse them.
Since it is very simple and generic, MFI Ontology registration
only has a little semantics of ontologies, and for their full
semantics, it relies on repositories such as OMG ODM.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
5
Simple and generic structure (1 of 4):
Common basic structure of ontology
Almost any ontology has this simple three granularity structure.
Ontology
An ontology consists of sentences.
e.g. Example_Ontology consists of
 Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony)
 Buyer(Tony)
 Creditrating(Credit-A)
Sentence
A sentence uses symbols.
e.g. Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony) uses
 Buyer
 Creditrating
 has
 Tony
 logical symbols  ,  ,  (and variables )
Symbol
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
6
Simple and generic structure (2 of 3):
MFI Ontology registration structure
MFI Ontology registration consists of
Ontology Whole, Ontology Component, Ontology Atomic Construct
that correspond to
ontology, sentence, symbol * respectively
and that have
administrative information ** of its correspondent
structural information of this level
a reference(URI) to its correspondent,
for further semantics, if necessary
Note
* : Logical symbols such as  ,  ,  and variables are ignored.
**: inherited from Administered Item of ISO/IEC 11179-3 MDR ,
such as registration authority, creation date etc.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
7
Simple and generic structure (3 of 3):
MFI Ontology registration structure
Actual ontology
Ontology
MFI Ontology registration
reference
Ontology Whole
+administrative info.
consistOf
Sentence
reference
Ontology Component
+administrative info
use
Symbol
Ontology Atomic Construct
reference +administrative info
For actual ontologies, MFI Ontology
registration mainly relies on OMG ODM
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
 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  Creditrating
 has
 Tony
目的外使用・複製禁止
8
Providing a framework to ensure trustiness
Reference Ontology vs. Local Ontology
Reference Ontology
Standardized ontology
that is usable and sharable by a community of interest
Trustworthy to others
A reference ontology consists of sentences only in reference ontologies.
A sentence in a reference ontology uses symbols only in reference ontologies.
Local Ontology
Localized ontology
for some applications based on Reference Ontologies
It is its user’s responsibility to trust this ontology or not.
A local ontology consists of sentences both in this local ontology and other
reference ontologies.
A sentence in a local ontology uses a symbols in this local ontology and other
reference ontologies.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
9
Core portion of MFI Ontology registration metamodel
Reference Ontology Whole
Reference Ontology Component
Local Ontology Whole
sameAs
Local Ontology Component
0:1
0:*
Reference Ontology Atomic Construct
2007/12/07
sameAs
0:1
0:*
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
Local Ontology Atomic Construct
目的外使用・複製禁止
10
Example1 (1 of 2)
Suppose that ontology A consists of sentence RC1, RC2
and RC3 as follows;
2007/12/07
RC1
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="dimensionality">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Unit" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Dimensionality" />
</owl:ObjectProperty>
RC2
<owl:Class rdf:ID="KernelUnit">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Unit"/>
</owl:Class>
RC3
<KernelUnit rdf:ID="metre">
<dimensionality>
<Dimensionality rdf:ID="length"/>
</dimensionality>
</KernelUnit>
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
11
Example1 (2 of 2)
Metadata registered in MFI Ontology registration
A
URI
Administered Info.
Ontology
Whole
Ontology
Component
Ontology
Atomic
Construct
RC1
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
Unit
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
RC2
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
KernelUnit
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
dimensionality
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
RC3
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
length
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
Dimensionality
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
metre
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
Note
 OWL constructs such as “ObjectProperty”, “subClassOf” etc. have no effects.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
12
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
13
Nature of ontologies
By nature,
ontologies are reused mutually and
ontologies evolve gradually
as they capture more semantics.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
14
Example2
First, ontology B uses ontology A.
ontology B
use
ontology A
Second, ontology A evolves from ver.1 to ver.2.
But ontology B still uses ontology A ver.1.
ontology B
ontology A
use
Ver.1
evolves
Ver.2
Third, ontology C uses ontology A ver.2.
ontology B
ontology A
use
Ver.1
evolves
Ver.2
use
ontology C
Note:This kind of situation often happens.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
15
Problem of MFI Ontology registration Ed1
 MFI Ontology registration needs to support facilities
to manage multi-versions of an ontology and
to manage how an ontology evolves.
 However, MFI Ontology registration Ed1 does not have
such facilities.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
16
Example1 (1 of 4) :roughly speaking
Suppose that ontology A evolves as follows;
RC1
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="dimensionality">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Unit" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Dimensionality" />
</owl:ObjectProperty>
RC2
RC2
<owl:Class rdf:ID="KernelUnit">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Unit"/>
</owl:Class>
<owl:Class rdf:ID="KernelUnit">
<owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#Unit/>
</owl:Class>
RC3
<KernelUnit rdf:ID="metre">
<dimensionality>
<Dimensionality rdf:ID="length"/>
</dimensionality>
</KernelUnit>
2007/12/07
evolves
Note:
“subClassOf “and “disjointWith” are
very different semantically.
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
17
Example1 (2 of 4) :roughly speaking
Although RC2 evolves substantially, there is no change in MFI Ontology
registration Ed1 except (Namespace)URI and some Adminitered Information
since “subClassOf” and “disjointWith” have no effect to MFI Ontology registration.
A
URI
Administered Info.
Ontology
Whole
Ontology
Component
Ontology
Atomic
Construct
2007/12/07
RC1
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
dimensionality
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
RC2
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
Dimensionality
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
Unit
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
metre
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
KernelUnit
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
RC3
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
length
NamespaceURI
Administered Info.
目的外使用・複製禁止
18
Example1 (3 of 4): more precisely speaking
Fortunately or unfortunately, usually, different versions of an
ontology are identified by different URIs.
For example,
 The current version of famous OWL Wine ontology is identified by http://www.w3. org /TR/2003/PR-owl-guide20031209/wine, which is also xmlns and xml:base.
 The prior version is identified by http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine, which is also
xmlns and xml:base.
 So, in the current version, “wine” is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine#wine but, in
the prior version, it is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine#wine and they are different.
Then, in MFI Ontology registration registry,
every component and atomic constructs of the current
version and of the prior version are regarded as different
since they are identified by NamespaceURI-prefixed name.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
19
Example1 (4 of 4) : more precisely speaking
In MFI Ontology registration, ontology A ver.1 and ontology A ver.2 are
treated as comletely different since their (Namespace)URIs are different,
although they are practically same except RC2 are substantially different.
completely different
<ver. 1> A
URI _1
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
RC1
RC2
<ver. 2>
A
URI _2
RC3
RC1
RC3
RC2
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
dimensionality
Unit
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Dimensionality
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
2007/12/07
metre
dimensionality
Unit
metre
NsURI_1
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
KernelUnit
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
length
Dimensionality
NsURI_1
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
KernelUnit
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
目的外使用・複製禁止
length
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
20
Example2
In the case that ontology B uses ontology A ver.1 and that ontology C
uses ontology A ver.2
What MFI Ontology registration can recognize is
ontology B
use
ontology A ver.1
ontology A ver.2
use
ontology C
 In MFI Ontology registration Ed1, the fact that “ontology B uses ontology A ver.1” is
represented as “an ontology_whole of ontology B consists of ontology_components of
ontology A ver.1”.
 But, ontology A ver.1 and ontology A ver.2 are different ontologies and not different
versions of the same ontology.
and not
ontology B
2007/12/07
ontology A
use
ver.1
evolves
ver.2
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
use
ontology C
目的外使用・複製禁止
21
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
22
What is MFI Ontology registration Ed2?
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 supports facilities
to manage multi-versions of an ontology and
to manage how an ontology evolves,
since ontologies are reused mutually and
ontologies evolve gradually as they capture more semantics
by nature.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
23
Overview: example1
evolves from ver.1 to ver.2
Some other metadata such as
backward compatibility etc.
A
URI _1
evolves
Admin. Info.
<ver. 1>
RC1
RC2
RC3
A
URI _2
Admin. Info.
RC1
<ver. 2>
RC3
RC2
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
dimensionality
Unit
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Dimensionality
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
metre
same
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
KernelUnit
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
dimensionality
same metre
Unit
length
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Dimensionality
NsURI_1
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
KernelUnit
NsURI_2
length
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
目的外使用・複製禁止
24
corresponds to
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
Three cases
There are three cases that an ontology evolves outside MFI
Ontology registration registry.
Case1
 Different URIs for each version of an ontology and
different URIs for each version of names in an otology
Case2
 Different URIs for each version of an ontology, but mostly
the same URIs for each version of names in an ontology
 This is a typical case.
Case3
 Same URI for each version of an ontology.
 Usually, this is the case that Persistent URLs are used.
e.g. http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
Since MFI Ontology registration is so generic, it should
support all of them.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
25
Case1 (1 of 2)
Different URIs for each version of an ontology and
different URIs for each version of symbols in an otology
This is the case shown as the example1 in Overview (at slide 24) etc.
It is not easy to decide whether the corresponding symbols
have the same semantics or not.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
26
Case1 (2 of 2)
For example, concerning “KernelUnit”
 Probably, many people say “KernelUnit in ver.1 and in ver.2 have different semantics because
in ver.1, KernelUnit is a subclass of Unit but in ver.2, KernelUnit is disjoint with Unit.
Then, how about Unit?
 Some people may say “Unit in ver.1 and in ver2 have different semantics because in ver.1 Unit
has KernelUnit as a subclass, but not in ver.2”.
 But, others may say “No. That difference is not about Unit but about KernelUnit .”
How about metre?
 Some people may say “Metre in ver.1 and in ver.2 have different semantics because in ver.1,
metre is an instance of Unit, but not in ver. 2”.
 But, probably many say “No. They are the same”
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
27
Case 2 (1 of 2)
Different URIs for each version of an ontology, but mostly
the same URIs for each version of names in an ontology
See example3 at next slide.
In this case, Unit, KernelUnit and metre are identical in
ver.1 and ver.2 as symbols since they have the same
NsURI_1 both in ver.1 and ver.2.
However, it is still not easy to decide whether they have
the same semantics in ver.1 and ver.2.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
28
Case2 (2 of 2): example 3
A
URI _1
<ver. 1>
RC1
evolves from ver.1 to ver.2
Some other metadata such as
backward compatibility etc.
evolves
Admin. Info.
RC2
Admin. Info.
RC1
RC3
A
URI _2
RC2
<ver. 2>
RC3
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
NsURI_2
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
metre
length
same
Unit
Dimensionality
dimensionality
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
2007/12/07
same
KernelUnit
NsURI_1
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
Admin. Info.
NsURI_1
NsURI_1
Admin. Info.
Admin. Info.
目的外使用・複製禁止
29
Case3
Same URI for each version of an ontology
This is a case that an ontology is just updated and mulch-versions
cannot be supported.
 MFI Ontology registration can at least update the administered
information such as “version”, “effective date” etc.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
30
Issues to be resolved
Whether fork-type evolution is acceptable or not?
 Maybe, for local ontologies, yes, but
for reference ontologies, no, since
reference ontologies should be standardized.
Whether a new version may have
the same URI as its prior version?
ver.1
ver.2
ver.4
ver.3
ver.5
fork-type evolution
 If always only the latest version is necessary, it is fine.
 Actually, Persistent URLs are very convenient.
 But, if multi-versions are necessary, it is not advisable (i.e. Case 3).
Exact metadata (references and attributes) that MFI
Ontology registration metamodel shall have.
 China is extensively studying them.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
31
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
32
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded.
Motivation (1 of 2)
The relation between reference ontology and local ontology
in MFI Ontology registration Ed1 needs to be expanded to a
partial-ordered relation.
MFI Ontology registration Ed1
defines Reference Ontology and Local Ontology as follows;
 Reference Ontology
–ontology that is usable and sharable by a community of interest
 Local Ontology
–ontology that is specialized for defined applications and based on at least one
reference ontology
puts the following constraints on local ontology.
 A local_ontology_component shall be consisted of by exactly one local_ontology_whole and not by a
reference_ontology_whole since it is localized.
 A local_ontology_atomic_construct shall be used by exactly one local_ontology_component and not by a
reference_ontology_component since it is localized.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
33
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded.
Motivation (2 of 2)
By nature, however, ontologies are reused mutually.
Even local ontologies should be able to reused by other local
ontologies in some extent.
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 will introduce a partial order
relation among local ontologies to control the extent that local
ontologies can be reused by other local ontologies.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
34
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded
A partial ordered set “Reusable Level”
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 will introduce a partial
ordered set called “Reusable Level”.
There is an element R“Reusable Level”
For any element e “Reusable Level”, e R
Example
R
L1
L2
L4
L5
L3
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
35
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded
A reference “reusability”
Ontology Whole, Ontology Component and Ontology
Atomic Construct will have a reference called “reusability”
to “Reusable Level” with its multiplicity 1:1.
Ontolgy Whole O has R as reusability
iff O is a reference ontology.
Ontology Component C has R as reusability
iff C is a reference ontology component.
Ontology Atomic Construct A has R as reusability
iff A is a reference ontology atomic construct.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
36
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded
Extended constraints for reusability
Extended constraints in ED2
A local_ontology_component with reusability Ln can be consisted of
by an ontology_whole with reusability Lm
iff Lm Ln.
A local_ontology_atomic_construct with reusability Ln can be used
by a local_ontology_component with reusability Lm
iff Lm Ln.
Note:
This is a natural extension of the following constraints in Ed1.
 A local_ontology_component shall be consisted of by exactly one local_ontology_whole and not by a
reference_ontology_whole .
 A local_ontology_atomic_construct shall be used by exactly one local_ontology_component and not by a
reference_ontology_component.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
37
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded
Example
A reference ontology component can be reused by any ontology component
since reference ontology component has maximum reusability R.
R
A local ontology
atomic construct
with reusability L1
can be reused by
a local ontology
component with
reusability L1, L3 or L4
and not with R, L2 or L5.
2007/12/07
L1
L2
L4
L5
L3
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
A local ontology
atomic construct
with reusability L2
can be reused by
a local ontology
component with
reusability L2, L3, L4 or L5
and not with R or L1.
目的外使用・複製禁止
38
2) Ed2 will support ontology inclusion. (1 of 2)
Ed1 does not support ontology inclusion such as “owl:import”.
So, in the case of
imports
ontology
sentence
symbol
A
B
C-A1
A-A1
C-A2
A-A2
A-A3
C-B1
C-B2
A-B1
A-B2
Ed1 simply registers ontology A as follows, expanding “import”.
A
ontology whole
ontology component
ontology atomic construct
2007/12/07
C-A1
A-A1
C-A2
A-A2
A-A3
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
C-B1
C-B2
A-B1
A-B2
目的外使用・複製禁止
39
2) Ed2 will support ontology inclusion. (2 of 2)
But, Ed1 has a problem in the case that ontology B is not registered
because in that case ontology A cannot expand ontology B.
So, Ed2 will simply register ontology A as it is as follows,
ontology whole
ontology component
ontology atomic construct
imports
A
C-A1
A-A1
B
C-A2
A-A2
A-A3
Note:
Since ontology B is not registered, the information on the ontology component
and ontology atomic construct of ontology B cannot be gained, but a part of
the information on the ontology whole of ontology B can be gained from
ontology A.
目的外使用・複製禁止
3) Ed2 will use IRIs, rather than URIs.
To support non-European characters, including Hungul,
Chinese and Japanese character,
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 will use IRIs, rather than URIs.
IRI : RFC 3987 Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs),
IETF Proposed Standard
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
41
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
42
Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
Evolution and reusability view
Reusable Level
Ontology Whole
lessThanOrEqual
imports
reusability
evolvesTo
only if reusability of an ontology whole
is lessThanOrEqual to reusability of
an ontology component.
evolvesTo
Ontology Component
sameAs
reusability
only if reusability of an ontology component
is lessThanOrEqual to reusability of
an ontology atomic construct.
correspondsTo
Ontology Atomic Construct
sameAs
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
43
Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
Reference and Local Ontology view
0:1 Reference Ontology evolvesTo Local Ontology 0:1
evolvesTo
Whole
0:1 Whole
0:1
0:*
0:1
only if reusability of an ontology component
evolvesTo
is lessThanOrEqual to reusability of
an ontology atomic construct.
0:1 Reference Ontology sameAs
Local Ontology 0:1
evolvesTo
Component
0:1
0:* Component
0:*
0:1
0:1
0:1
evolvesTo
evolvesTo
only if reusability of an ontology whole
is lessThanOrEqual to reusability of
an ontology component.
0:1 Reference Ontology sameAs Local Ontology
0:1
Atomic Construct
0:1
0:* Atomic Construct
correspondsTo
0:1
0:1
0:*
0:1
evolvesTo
correspondsTo
Note: The associations “imports” are omitted just for simplicity
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
44
Thank you for your attention.
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 WD is in preparation.
Any comments and/or contributions are very welcome to
okabe.masao<at>tepco.co.jp.
2007/12/07
東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
45

Download Report