SC32/WG2 N ISO/IEC WD 19763-3 MMF Ontology Registration He Keqing and OKABE, Masao Project editor...

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.)


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)


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.


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


SC32/WG2 N

Outline

Objectives

Basic idea 1

Basic idea 2

Metamodel

Relation to ODM

Examples

Summary


SC32/WG2 N

Objectives


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.


SC32/WG2 N

Basic idea 1To solve problem1

Each ontology is developed independently and evolves autonomously.


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.


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

・・・


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


SC32/WG2 N

MMF Ontology Registration structure(2)

e.g.

Administrative information etc.

corresponding to Example_Ontology

e.g.


corresponding to each of Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony) Buyer(Tony) Creditrating(Credit-A)

e.g.


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


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


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.


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…


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…


SC32/WG2 N

Metamodel


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


SC32/WG2 N

Whole metamodel of MMF Ontology Registration


SC32/WG2 N

Relation to OMG ODM


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


repository


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


Ontology B


Ontology B

Ontology Registration

Information for Ontology A

Registration Info. C


information for ontology B

Registration Info. B

Scope of MMF Ontology registration


repository


repository

for application system C

Ontology C


Ontology A

...for application system C

Ontology C


Ontology A

...

.....StandardizOntology

Repository


repository

StandardizOntology

Repository

StandardizOntology

Repository


repository


information for ontology A

Registration Info. A

...

.....

Interoperation Applicationsystem B

Applicationsystem B

ApplicatioSystem AApplicatioSystem AApplication

system A

Scope of specifications such as ODM


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


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



SC32/WG2 N

Exampleto show how MMF Ontology Registration works


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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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 Anthony) (Email B) (Send Anthony B Jerry) (About B A)

Reference Ontology RO1 RO2

Local Ontology LO1 LO2


SC32/WG2 N

Example1:Object Diagram of MMF Ontology Registration

<Ontology_Atomic_Construct> <Ontology_Component> <Ontology>

RO2

RO1

Credit-A

hasProblem

A

Email

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


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.


SC32/WG2 N

Thank you for your attention.


SC32/WG2 N

AnnexMore realistic example using ‘OWL Wine’ as a reference ontology.


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


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


+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


+ namespace: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine

+ use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in this component


SC32/WG2 N

Premise(3)

Reference_Ontology_Atomic_ConstructWine: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct


+ namespace:http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine

PotableLiquid: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct


+ 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.


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.


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


+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.


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


+namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine1


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.


SC32/WG2 N



Suppose L0 is the only knowledge he wants to add and L0 is ‘myWine is a subclass of Wine’

my-wine2: Local_Ontology



+consistOf: all OID of Local_Ontology_Component ‘L0’ – ‘L857’ at this slide and next slide.

L0: Local_Ontology_Component



+use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘myWine’ at next silde.


SC32/WG2 N

Case2(3)

Local_Ontology_Component (continued)


Lxx: Local_Ontology_Component



+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





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.


SC32/WG2 N



Suppose C0 is the only knowledge he wants to add and C0 is ‘myWine is a subclass of Wine’




+consistOf: all OIDs of Local_Ontology_Component ‘C0’ – ‘C857’ at next slide.

C0: Local_Ontology_Component



+use: OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘myWine’ at next slide.


SC32/WG2 N

Case3(3)



Cxx: Local_Ontology_Component



+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





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.


SC32/WG2 N



Suppose C0 is the only knowledge he wants to add and C0 is ‘myWine is a subclass of Wine’




+consistOf: all OID of Local_Ontology_Component ‘C0’ – ‘C857’ at next slide

C0: Local_Ontology_Component



+use: OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and ‘myWine’ at next slide


SC32/WG2 N

Case4(3)



Cxx: Local_Ontology_Component



+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




SC32/WG2 N

Case4(4)

Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct (continued)Wine : Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct


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



+sameAs:OID of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘PotableLiquid’ with namespace http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food

etc. etc.

Date post:	03-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	loraine-burns
View:	219 times
Download:	2 times

SC32/WG2 N ISO/IEC WD 19763-3 MMF Ontology Registration He Keqing and OKABE, Masao Project editor...

Documents