Hi Jeff, Well, I used it myself for this purpose in combination with SPIN (instantiating an explicit geometry ontology based on a pure semantic one; say 'heigths' become z-coordinates of BREPS etc.) but I would rather say it CAN be used than it is THE way to do it. In ISO STEP technology world they have for instance the EXPRESS-X language which is much more designed esp. for this purpose; and I assume XSLT too (but ok, I have to little xslt knowledge to decide...). If you have any resources of the type "ontology mapping/conversion with Sparql" I'dd be very interested. Michel
-----Original Message----- From: Schmitz, Jeffrey A [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: woensdag 18 november 2009 17:35 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [tbc-users] Re: OWL 2 XML Serializtion (esp. relevant since we do not really have an owl level XSLT > variant, or do we? Which would be very handy mapping data from one > ontology to the other...) If I understand what you want, I think SPARQL Construct is exactly what you are looking for to map from ontology to ontology. But since you use TBC, I'd assume you know this, so perhaps I don't quite understand the question. Jeff Work: 314-232-1997 Cell: 636-448-5990 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bohms, H.M. (Michel) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [tbc-users] Re: OWL 2 XML Serializtion > > > > and....how would that be possible for RDF/XML .... > (ie would OWL/XML be more suitable for XSLT mappings than RDF/XML) > > (esp. relevant since we do not really have an owl level XSLT variant, > or do we? Which would be very handy mapping data from one ontology to > the other...) > > Michel > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Schmitz, Jeffrey A [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: woensdag 18 november 2009 17:20 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [tbc-users] Re: OWL 2 XML Serializtion > > > At least they can start doing something with OWL data in their own > > toolset/spec knowledge.... > > BINGO. I know nothing about OWL/XML at this point, but just had one > question. Would an OWL model exported in OWL/XML be consistant enough > in its representation syntax to allow one to write an XSLT against it? > This would be a BIG help in making OWL models more inter-operable with > existing tools. > > Jeff > Work: 314-232-1997 > Cell: 636-448-5990 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bohms, H.M. (Michel) [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:10 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [tbc-users] Re: OWL 2 XML Serializtion > > > > Ok, but :) > > > > Many people currently using Plain XML specs/tools (for > instance those > > who are able to handle XSDs and compliant XML > > data) would find it easier to do something with the OWL/XML output > > than with the RDF forms. > > > > So I agree that OWL/XML would be a step in between OWL in > RDF form and > > Plain XML... > > > > At least they can start doing something with OWL data in their own > > toolset/spec knowledge.... > > > > So the question is now: is OWL/XML not > better/simpler/moredirect for > > this purpose than XML/RDF (as you suggest). > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Henninger [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: woensdag 18 november 2009 16:57 > > To: TopBraid Composer Users > > Subject: [tbc-users] Re: OWL 2 XML Serializtion > > > > <Currently the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and > Innovation > > is developing there own xml based ontologies. > > Quite stupid but nevertheless a fact of the real world.> > > > > Yes ;-) and it is perplexing that the message on OWL and RDF > > compatibility has failed to reach them. > > > > <I would like to be able to persuade them to at least use > the xsd for > > OWL/XML to make there ontologies compatible with the world > of linked > > data> > > > > Already done. All of OWL can be represented in RDF and RDF/XML > > provides an XML serialization. So as long as the constructs are > > compatible with RDF, there is no problem. > > > > RDF is the basis for linked data, by the way. OWL adds > some modeling > > constructs, and inferencing profiles on top of that, but > RDF is what > > is necessary. > > > > OWL/XML, on the other hand is not an RDF format, and it is > perplexing > > why it is deemed necessary. Perhaps the problem is > verbosity of RDF/ > > XML. But the larger, much more important issue, is the unnecessary > > disconnection between RDF and OWL. This means that one > will be left > > with no effective query language, as SPARQL operates on RDF. > > > > -- Scott > > > > On Nov 18, 7:39 am, Peter Bruhn Andersen <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hi Jeremy > > > > > > You asked:> So, I am intrigued ... do you want OWL/XML > > format because > > > you want to > > > > read it? Because you have other tools that work with > > OWL/XML but not > > > > with RDF/XML? or ... > > > > what is the underlying requirement driving this request? > > > > > > My personal reason for wanting TopQuadrant to provide us > with this > > > feature is to let me reach out to the many who still sees > no reason > > > whatsoever to use RDF and/ OWL. > > > Letting those of us who can develop ontologies using OWL while we > > > provide the xml community with a vesrion they understand > > seems to me > > > to be a good solution. This way we can introduce semantic > > technologies > > > step by step without having a non-productive battle > between XML and > > > RDF communities. > > > > > > A case in point: Currently the Danish Ministry of Science, > > Technology > > > and Innovation is developing there own xml based > ontologies. Quite > > > stupid but nevertheless a fact of the real world. I would > > like to be > > > able to persuade them to at least use the xsd for OWL/XML to make > > > there ontologies compatible with the world of linked data. > > > > > > And I hope I can count on TopQuadrant to provide me with > the tools. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Peter Bruhn Andersen > > > > -- > > > > 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=. > > > > > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at > > http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html > > > > -- > > > > 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=. > > > > > > > > -- > > 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=. > > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at > http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html > > -- > > 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=. > > > -- 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=. This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html -- 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=.
