ISO/IEC CD 19763-3 MMF Ontology Registration

1
ISO/IEC CD 19763-3MMF Ontology Registration

• OKABE, Masao
• Co-editor, MMF Ontology Registration Project,
  ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2
• Corporate Systems Department, Tokyo Electric
  Power Co., Inc.
• 2005.7.15

2
About this presentation

• All the materials for this presentation are based
  on the discussions by all the active members of
  ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration
  project.
• 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.)
• Japan
• Hajime Horiuchi (Tokyo International Univ.)
• Masao Okabe (Project editor, TEPCO)
• Masaharu Obayashi (K-three)

3
About MMF Project

• MMF Project is one of the ongoing ISO/IEC
  standardization projects.
• Official TitleISO/IEC 19763 Framework for
  Metamodel Interoperability
• Project Number 1.32.22.01
• Project leader Hajime Horiuchi, Japan
• Participating countries Japan, China, Korea, UK,
  Canada
• Mulch part project
• Part1 Framework
• Part2 Core
• Part3 Metamodel for ontology registration (MMF
  Ontology Registration)
• Part4 Metamodel for model mapping
• ISO/IEC 19763-3 MMF Ontology Registration
• Objectives
• To promote interoperability based on ontolgies
• Current status
• Committee Draft is on the 3 months ballot.(April
  27 July 28)
• will be International Standard in December 2007.

4
Basic Policy and Idea of MMF Ontology Registration

• Basic Policy
• Minimal specifications at the first step
• should be extended on the requirements from
  actual industrial use at the next step
• Basic Idea
• distinguish two types of ontologies.
• Reference Ontology and Local Ontology
• so that it can help ontology-based
  interoperation.
• have only a very simple structure
• Ontology Ontology Component Ontology Atomic
  Construct
• so that it can be applied to a variety of
  ontologies,
• almost independent of ontology description
  language.

5
Outline

• Objectives
• Basic idea 1
• Basic idea 2
• Metamodel
• Relation to OMG ODM
• Examples
• Summary

6

• Objectives

7
What MMF Ontology Registration will do

• Objectives
• To promote interoperability based on ontologies.
• Obstacles to ontology-based interoperation
• Problem1
• 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.

8

• Basic idea 1
• To solve problem1
• Each ontology is developed independently and
• evolves autonomously.

9
Difficulty 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.

• To avoid this difficulty, MMF Ontology
  Registration provides
• two types of ontologies, Reference Ontology and
  Local Ontology.

10
Reference ontology and local ontology

• Reference Ontology
• standardized ontology
• for some business domain
• pre-defined and relatively stable

Reference Ontology3
Reference Ontology1
Reference Ontology2
Local Ontology for application system B
Local Ontology for application system A

• Local ontology
• localized ontology for some application system
  based on reference ontologies
• relatively unstable and evolves autonomously and
  continuously.

11
With Reference Ontology

• MMF Ontology Registration provides the
  registration framework where a local ontology is
  defined based on reference ontologies

12

• Basic idea 2
• To 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.

13
Many ontology description languages

• XML(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, W3C recommendations, OMG
  specifications.

14
The reality is,

• OWL gains great popularity
• Someone says , In the near future, all
  ontologies will be translated into OWL.
• 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 framework.
• But, the reality is
• It is not realistic that all ontologies are
  translated into OWL.
• At least, ontologies using predicate with arity
  n(gt2) cannot be translated into OWL.
• There are not many ontolgies described in Common
  Logic.
• There are several described in traditional KIF.
• Looser harmonization is necessary

15
Common basic structure of ontology

• A very simplified but common three granularity
  level structure is

16
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 have
• administrative information of its
  correspondent
• structural information of this level
• a 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
  11179-3 MDR ,
• such as registration authority, creation date
  etc.

17
MMF Ontology Registration structure(2)
18
View from of ontology description languages

• Almost any FOLs have these hierarchies.

This corresponds to Ontology Component
expression
symbol
term
sentence (in a broad sense)
Atomic term
composite term
sentence (or clause) (in a narrow sense)
definition
logical symbol (in a broad sense)
This corresponds to Ontology Atomic Construct
non logical symbol
variable
logical symbol (in a narrow sense)
predicate
individual (or object)
unary predicate (or concept)
N-nary predicate (or role, relation)
sentence letter (o-ary predicate)
19
Example OWL Wine Ontology (1 of 3)

• Ontolgy
• Administrative information etc. corresponding to
  a whole ontology wine.xml at http//www.w3.org/T
  R/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
• Ontology_Component
• Administrative information etc. corresponding to
• ltowlClass rdfID"WhiteWine"gt
• ltowlintersectionOf rdfparseType"Collection"gt
  
• ltowlClass rdfabout"Wine" /gt
• ltowlRestrictiongt
• ltowlonProperty rdfresource"hasColor" /gt
  
• ltowlhasValue rdfresource"White" /gt
• lt/owlRestrictiongt
• lt/owlintersectionOfgt
• lt/owlClassgt ,
• ltowlObjectProperty rdfID"hasVintageYear"gt
• ltrdftype rdfresource"owlFunctionalProperty"
  /gt
• ltrdfsdomain rdfresource"Vintage" /gt
• ltrdfsrange rdfresource"VintageYear" /gt
• lt/owlObjectPropertygt , etc

20
Example OWL Wine Ontology (2 of 3)

• Ontology Atomic Construct
• Administrative information etc. corresponding to
• WhiteWine,
• Collection,
• Wine,
• hasColor,
• White,
• hasVintageYear,
• FunctionalProperty,
• Vintage,
• VintageYear, etc

21
Example OWL Wine Ontology (3 of 3)

• Note
• MMF Ontology Registration does not specify the
  granularity level of a sentence.
• It is its owners choice from the point of
  management, re-use etc.
• In the case of OWL Wine Ontology, it is natural
  that each identified by rdfID be treated as a
  sentence because most of them are definitions.
• But there are some without rdfID.
• For example,
• ltowlClass rdfabout"WhiteLoire"gt
• ltrdfssubClassOfgt
• ltowlRestrictiongt
• lt/owlRestrictiongt
• lt/rdfssubClassOfgt
• lt/owlClassgt
• From the point of MMF Ontology Registration, it
  is better that
• all the sentences at some granularity level be
  identified by rdfID
• OWL have a mechanism to import other ontologies
  by sentence

• ltowlAllDifferentgt
• ltowldistinctMembers rdfparseType"Collection"gt
• ltvinWinery rdfabout"Bancroft" /gt
• ltvinWinery rdfabout"WhitehallLane" /gt
• lt/owldistinctMembersgt
• lt/owlAllDifferentgt

22
Example SUMO

• Ontology
• Administrative information etc. corresponding to
• SUMO at http//virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/
• Ontology Component
• Administrative information etc. corresponding to
• (gt (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.

23

• Metamodel

24
Core portion of MMF Ontology Registration
metamodel

• Local Ontology
• localized ontology for
• some application system
• based on Reference
• Ontologies
• relatively unstable and
• evolves autonomously

• Reference Ontology
• standardized ontology
• for some business domain
• relatively stable

25
Whole metamodel of MMF Ontology Registration
26

• Relation to OMG ODM

27
Scope of MMF Ontology Registration
28
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 a specification under development by OMG
• will be adopted as a OMG specification in this
  September
• specifies
• 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

29
Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM
MMF Ontology Registration
Ontology
Ontology Component
Atomic_Onto_Construct
ER Metamodel
UML2 Metamodel
SCL Metamodel
OWL/RDFS Metamodel
TM Metamodel
DL Metamodel
ODM
Ontology described in OWL/RDFS
30
Comments on ODM (1 of 6)Example Description

• Let us take the following ontology as an example.
• An ontology Example consists of
• A mother is a woman who has a person as a child.
• In usual elementary logic, this ontology consists
  of the following sentence.
• ? x ( Mother(x) ? Woman(x) ?(? y (hasChild(x, y)
  ?Person(y))))

31
Comments on ODM (2 of 6) Description in each
syntax

• In CL
• (forall x (iff (Mother x) (and (Woman x) (exist y
  (and (hasChild x y) (Person y))))
• In OWL
• ltowlClass rdfID"Mother"gt
• ltowlequivalentClassgt
• ltowlintersectionOf rdfparseType"Collection"gt
  
• ltowlClass rdfabout"Woman"/gt
• ltowlRestrictiongt
• ltowlonProperty rdfresource"hasChild"/gt
• ltowlsomeValuesFrom rdfresource"Person"/gt
• lt/owlRestrictiongt
• lt/owlintersectionOfgt
• lt/owlequivalentClassgt
• lt/owlClassgt
• In DL
• Mother ? Woman??hasChild.Person

32
Comments on ODM (3 of 6) Object diagram in each
ODM metamodel

• Since the structures are similar, the ODM object
  diagrams (CL, OWL) should be similar, but they
  look quite different.
• see next two slides.
• Even if we ignore the following point,
• CL uses for all and variables explicitly,
• whereas DL and OWL do not use for all and
  variables but describe the same meanings
  implicitly.
• There are still a big difference as below.
• In CL and OWL, the definition of Mother itself is
  an instance of some metaclass,
• whereas in OWL, the definition is an association
  with Mother and an anonymous instance of
  intersectionClass as its association ends.

33
Comments on ODM (4 of 6)Object diagram in CL
metamodel
This corresponds to Ontology in MMF
This corresponds to Ontology_Component in MMF
Example_Modeule CL Module
Sentence
Example CLText
(forall x (iff (Mother x) (and (Woman x) (exist y
(and (hasChild x y) (Person y))))UniversalQuantif
ication
(iff (Mother x) (and (Woman x) (exist y (and
(hasChild x y) (Person y))))Equivalence
(Mother x) ApplicationOfRelation
(and (Woman x) (exist y (and (hasChild x y)
(Person y)))Conjunction
MotherLogicalName
(exist y (and (hasChild x y) (Person
y)))ExistentialQuantification
(Woman x) ApplicationOfRelation
(and (hasChild x y) (Person y))Conjunction
WomanLogicalName
(hasChild x y) ApplicationOfRelation
(Person y)ApplicationOfRelation
hasChildLogicalName
yBinding
PersonLogicalName
xBinding
These corresponds to Ontology_Atomic_Constructs
in MMF
34
Comments on ODM (5 of 6) Object diagram in OWL
metamodel
This association corresponds to
Ontology_Component in MMF. Since OWLOntology can
only contain RDFSResource, this association
cannot be contained in the ontology.
This corresponds to Ontology in MMF
Example OWLOntology
RDFSResource
Mother OWLClass
OWLequivalentClass
???
IntersectionClass
OWLintersectionOf
Woman OWLClass
OWLintersectionOfcc
SomeValuesFromRestriction
???
OWLonProperty
hasChild OWLObjectProperty
OWLsomeValuesFrom
Person OWLClass
These corresponds to Ontology_Atomic_Constructs
in MMF
35
Comments on ODM (6 of 6) Simpler examples of OWL

• Suppose that
• there are two OWLClasses People and Person.
• ontology Example1 says People is a subClassOf
  Person.
• ontology Example2 says People is an
  equivalentClass of Person.
• Then, objects diagrams become as below and
• Example1 and Example2 cannot be distinguished.

Example1OWLOntology
Example2OWLOntology
This association should be contained in Example1.
This association should be contained in Example1.
RDFSsubClassOf
PeopleOWLClass
PersonOWLClass
OWLequivalentClass
36

• Example
• to show how MMF Ontology Registration works

37
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 (symbols) .
• It is out of the scope of this example whether
  Buyer(Anthony) or (Send Anthony B Jerry) are
  actually appropriate for Reference ontologies or
  not.

38
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.

39
Example1Without MMF Ontology Registration
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?
Local Ontology LO1
Local Ontology LO2
Tony??? I do not know Tony.

• 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)

• What is the worse,
• it is difficult for agent A to find agent B who
  has the answer.

40
Example1 with MMF Ontology Registration
Reference Ontology RO1
Reference Ontology RO2
MMF Ontology Registration
Agent of MMF Ontology Registration tells 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
Tell me to whom Tony sent an e-mail?
Local Ontology LO1
Local Ontology LO2

• Buyer(Tony)
• Creditrating(Credit-A)
• has(Tony, Credit-A)
• hasProblem(Tony, A)
• About(A, Credit-A)

Hmm.. Tony is Anthony. So, the answer is to
Jerry.

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

41
Example1Object Diagram of MMF Ontology
Registration
42
Summary

• MMF 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 OMG ODM.

43

• Thank you for your attention.
• Any questions and/or comments are welcome to
• okabe.masao_at_tepco.co.jp

44

• Annex
• More realistic example using OWL Wine as a
  reference ontology.

45
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/wi
ne consistOf all OIDs of Souce_Ontology_Componen
t at next slide
46
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 users 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_At
omic_Construct used in this component
47
Premise(3)

• Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

Wine Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct adminis
trative information owl-wine authority etc.
namespacehttp//www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-2
0031209/wine
etc. All symbols whose name space is
http//www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wi
ne
PotableLiquid Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
administrative information owl-wine
authority etc. namespace http//www.w3.org/TR/2
003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food
etc. All symbols in owl_wine whose name space is
http//www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/fo
od. If owl_food is registered before owl_wine,
owl_wine re-use these symbols in owl_food.
48
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.

49
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_Componen
t L0 below.
L0 Local_Ontology_Component administrative
information my-wine1 authority
etc. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-server/my-win
e1 use OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Constr
uct Wine and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
myWine at next silde.
50
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 administr
ative information my-wine1 authority
etc. namespace http//www.my-own-PC-server/my-wi
ne1
51
Case2(1)

• Some liquor shop owner wants to create a local
  ontology called my-wine2 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-20031209/wi
  ne 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.

52
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. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-server/my-win
e2 use OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Constr
uct Wine and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
myWine at next silde.
53
Case2(3)

• Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
• Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

Lxx Local_Ontology_Component administrative
information my-wine2 authority
etc. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-server/my-win
e2 use OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Constr
uct used in this component (same as OIDs
of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in
Cxx) sameAs OID of Reference_Ontology_Componen
t Cxx
Note xx 1 - 857
myWine Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct administr
ative information my-wine2 authority
etc. namespace http//www.my-own-PC-server/my-wi
ne2
54
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-20031209/wi
  ne to his PC server since his network environment
  is not good.
• Second, he added his own knowledge to the
  downloaded owl-wine and names 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.

55
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. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-server/my-win
e3 use OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Constr
uct Wine and Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
myWine at next slide.
56
Case3(3)

• Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
• Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

Cxx Local_Ontology_Component administrative
information my-wine3 authority
etc. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-server/my-win
e3 use OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Constr
uct 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-20031
209/wine) sameAs OID of Reference_Ontology_Compo
nent Cxx with namespace http//www.w3.org/T
R/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
Note xx 1 - 857
myWine Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct administr
ative information my-wine3 authority
etc. namespace http//www.my-own-PC-server/my-wi
ne3
57
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-20031209/wi
  ne to his PC server since his network environment
  is not good.
• Second, he added his own knowledge to the
  downloaded owl-wine and names it my-wine4.
• Third, he changes nasmespace URIs and a base URI
  to http//www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4 except
  xmlnsowl, 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_Component
  s nor Reference_Ontolgy_Atomic_Constructs are
  re-used.

58
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. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-server/my-win
e4 use OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
Wine and myWine at next slide
59
Case4(3)

• Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
• Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

Cxx Local_Ontology_Component administrative
information my-wine4 authority
etc. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-server/my-win
e4 sameAs OID of Reference_Ontology_Component
Cxx at http//www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide
-20031209/wine use OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomi
c_Constructs at next silide used in this
component
Note xx 1 - 857
myWine Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construc administra
tive information my-wine4 authority
etc. namespace http//www.my-own-PC-server/my-wi
ne4
60
Case4(4)

• Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct (continued)

Wine Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct administra
tive information my-wine4 authority
etc. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine
4 same_as OID of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Constr
uct Wine with namespace http//www.w3.org/TR/
2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
etc. etc.
PotableLiquid Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
administrative information my-wine4
authority etc. namespacehttp//www.my-own-PC-ser
ver/my-wine4 sameAs OID of Reference_Ontology_At
omic_Construct PotableLiquid with namespace
http//www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/fo
od
etc.