So, I can merge two files with different ontology by use import tab and export/merge OWL/RDF files. I would like to know that is any possibility alignment ontology in TopBraid using GUI for example (http://webhome.cs.uvic.ca/~seanf/images/cogz_screenshot.png). I know that I can use SPARQL for example http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2006/09/ontology-mapping-with-sparql-construct.html(could you fix images, I don't see).
Thanks ol3j On 6 Lip, 18:30, Dean Allemang <[email protected]> wrote: > Obrst, Leo J. wrote: > > Perhaps then you already have the capabilities that e-connections or > > comparable notions are intended to provide? Basically it is both a way to > > logically partition a given ontology into sub-domains and also a way to > > have mappings among ontologies which are much finer-grained than imports, > > and not just reduced to ordinary OWL equivalence assertions (sameAs, etc.) > > > There are a couple of such notions floating around: e-connections, > > Distributed Description Logic (DDL), etc. For example, [1]. > > > Thanks, > > Leo > > In principle, owl:imports can be as fine-grained as you like; you could > have a bunch of named graphs with a single triple apiece. That's in > principle, but in practice it doesn't deviate that much. If you have a > tool that make managing multiple named graphs / OWL files easy, you can > split your ontology into a large number of pieces, and manage them with > owl:imports. We have been doing this successfully for year. Back the > the Protege days, managing a dozen such modules was an onus. We > typically manage several dozen nowadays, and occasionally in the > hundreds, without undue stress on project management. > > Furthermore, within SPARLQMotion, you can define (with a SPARQL > CONSTRUCT) just what part of an ontology you are really interested in, > and pass that on to the next SM module. This has the advantage of > keeping within standards as closely as possible (eg, SPARQL doing all > the heavy lifting for defining sets of triples), while providing > capabilities of the sort you are describing. > > But of course, Holger's comment about extra plugins is the real answer - > even if I am correct that with SM and our multiple ontology management > infrastructure, we can support many of the same requirements, you might > still want to support e-connections etc. > > Dean --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
