Hi ol3j, TopBraid currently does not have an interactive graphical mapping editor like the one on your first screenshot. This is one of the things I always planned to do but never really had time to finish. As described in my blog, the diagram view can visualize SPARQL-based mappings (using spin:query) in class diagrams, but there is no way to define new mappings this way.
SPIN has various mechanisms though to make the definition of such mappings as easy as possible though. In particular you can define a library of SPIN templates for typical patterns. Then you would just need to instantiate those templates (which can actually be done nicely with the Graph view of TBC). Holger On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:11 AM, ol3j wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
