From John.Goodwin at ordnancesurvey.co.uk Fri Jul 7 06:05:46 2006 From: John.Goodwin at ordnancesurvey.co.uk (John Goodwin) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 11:05:46 +0100 Subject: [OWL] FW: Call for Papers: Terra Cognita - directions to the geospatial semantic web Message-ID: <4AA808D68343824E8891632BD448AE6B0320A5DD@OSMAIL.ordsvy.gov.uk> Sorry for the cross posts. Please feel free to contact either catherine.colbear at ordnancesurvey.co.uk or john.goodwin at ordnancesurvey.co.uk For more information. > > Dear colleague, > > I am pleased to announce the workshop "Terra Cognita - directions to > the Geospatial Semantic Web" will be held on 6th November 2006, in > conjunction with the Fifth International Semantic Web Conference > (ISWC'06) in Athens, Georgia, USA. > > The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers from the > semantic web and formal logic communities who are searching for > real-world case studies to stretch their modelling languages and > algorithms, with domain experts who have perhaps yet to implement > semantic applications using their spatial understanding. The intended > audience also includes those "in the middle" with an interest in > formal spatial reasoning, exploitation of relational spatial > databases, and standards for implementation of the geospatially > enabled Semantic Web. > > Topics of interest include: > * Authoring of geographic and geospatial ontologies > * Algorithms and software for geospatial reasoning, > inference, rules processing, and query. > * Representation and interoperability of geography at > different levels of semantic abstraction: geometry, topology, > cartography, and real world object descriptions. > * Representation, communication, and reasoning with > spatial relationships > * Representation and processing of geographically > ambiguous or unstructured concepts and extents. > * Semantic mediation between information communities with > geospatial dependencies. > * Semantic Web services for geospatial content > (discovery, binding, invocation, composition, and orchestration) > > More information and submission instructions are available at > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/terracognita > > We welcome submissions from you or members of your research group, and > look forward to seeing you at Terra Cognita '06. > > Kind regards, > > Cathy Dolbear > Workshop chair > > > Dr Cathy Dolbear > Senior Research Scientist > Ordnance Survey of Great Britain > www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/research > catherine.dolbear at ordnancesurvey.co.uk > . This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person. Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice. Thank you for your cooperation. Ordnance Survey Romsey Road Southampton SO16 4GU Tel: 023 8079 2000 http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk From alanruttenberg at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 14:59:50 2006 From: alanruttenberg at gmail.com (Alan Ruttenberg) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:59:50 -0400 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? Message-ID: In other words, what abstract syntax would I write in order that the following RDF serialization would be generated? (RDF headers omitted) Thanks, Alan From tiago.minuzzi at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 19:56:23 2006 From: tiago.minuzzi at gmail.com (Minuzzi) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:56:23 -0300 Subject: [OWL] UML into OWL Message-ID: <1666835d0607271656h4409dd16g86068a7cab7c4c43@mail.gmail.com> Hi All Exists a standard, that if can transform UML into OWL? Exists some tool that makes this? Regards Tiago -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/owl/attachments/20060727/4c15a174/attachment.html From holger at topquadrant.com Thu Jul 27 22:01:45 2006 From: holger at topquadrant.com (Holger Knublauch) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:01:45 -0700 Subject: [OWL] UML into OWL In-Reply-To: <1666835d0607271656h4409dd16g86068a7cab7c4c43@mail.gmail.com> References: <1666835d0607271656h4409dd16g86068a7cab7c4c43@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44C97009.20506@topquadrant.com> > Exists a standard, that if can transform UML into OWL? Exists some tool > that makes this? There is no standard for UML to OWL, but some approaches such as the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) propose mappings [1]. TopBraid Composer (linked below) has a UML to OWL converter. See also [2] for the documentation of this feature. Holger TopQuadrant, Inc. http://www.topbraidcomposer.com http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/ [1] http://www.omg.org/ontology/ [2] http://www.topbraidcomposer.com/documentation/Import_UML.htm From dlm at ksl.stanford.edu Fri Jul 28 02:46:55 2006 From: dlm at ksl.stanford.edu (Deborah L.McGuinness) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:46:55 -0700 Subject: [OWL] UML into OWL In-Reply-To: <1666835d0607271656h4409dd16g86068a7cab7c4c43@mail.gmail.com> References: <1666835d0607271656h4409dd16g86068a7cab7c4c43@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44C9B2DF.80908@ksl.stanford.edu> sandpiper software provides tools that allow modeling in UML and exporting in OWL. http://www.sandsoft.com/products.html includes info. Visual Ontology Modeler is the product. The Ontology Definition Metamodel (submitted by IBM and Sandpiper - http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/06-05-01.pdf) which was just recommended for adoption is the best resource I know of on mapping issues. Specifically, look at chapter 16 "Mapping UML to OWL" Deborah Minuzzi wrote: > Hi All > > Exists a standard, that if can transform UML into OWL? Exists some > tool that makes this? > > Regards > > Tiago > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl > -- Deborah L. McGuinness Co-Director Knowledge Systems - AI Lab (KSL) 353 Serra Mall Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 email: dlm at ksl.stanford.edu URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 From franconi at inf.unibz.it Fri Jul 28 03:57:42 2006 From: franconi at inf.unibz.it (Enrico Franconi) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:57:42 +0200 Subject: [OWL] UML into OWL In-Reply-To: <44C9B2DF.80908@ksl.stanford.edu> References: <1666835d0607271656h4409dd16g86068a7cab7c4c43@mail.gmail.com> <44C9B2DF.80908@ksl.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <661F491A-8DA7-4358-BEFF-6D266131C35C@inf.unibz.it> The article is a precise and provably correct description of the encoding of UML class diagrams in OWL-Lite ontologies, and of OWL-DL (without nominals) ontologies in UML class diagrams, overcoming the na?vetes of the ODM document below. cheers --e. On 28 Jul 2006, at 08:46, Deborah L.McGuinness wrote: > The Ontology Definition Metamodel > (submitted by IBM and Sandpiper - http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/ > 06-05-01.pdf) > which was just recommended for adoption is the best resource I know of > on mapping issues. > > Tiago Minuzzi wrote: > >> Exists a standard, that if can transform UML into OWL? Exists some >> tool that makes this? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2425 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/owl/attachments/20060728/1e6162b5/attachment.bin From ewallace at cme.nist.gov Fri Jul 28 09:41:29 2006 From: ewallace at cme.nist.gov (ewallace at cme.nist.gov) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] UML into OWL Message-ID: <200607281341.JAA01998@clue.mel.nist.gov> Deborah L.McGuinness wrote: >The Ontology Definition Metamodel >(submitted by IBM and Sandpiper - http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/06-05-01.pdf) >which was just recommended for adoption is the best resource I know of >on mapping issues. >Specifically, look at chapter 16 "Mapping UML to OWL" Two things about this: - http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/06-05-01.pdf may be a better URL for ODM for those who are not OMG regulars; and - the "Mapping UML to OWL" chapter is still a bit rough and the technical rendering of the mapping is in the MOF Query, View, Transformation language which few are familiar with. So this may be a less helpful then you might expect for this purpose. I don't have any better alternatives to offer however. Evan K. Wallace - OMG Ontology PSIG chair Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST From hitzler at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de Fri Jul 28 09:32:42 2006 From: hitzler at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de (Pascal Hitzler) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:32:42 +0200 Subject: [OWL] CfP Deadline Extension: OWLED06. OWL - Experiences and Directions Message-ID: <44CA11FA.3080600@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de> OWL: EXPERIENCES AND DIRECTIONS Second International Workshop Athens, GA, USA, 10-11 November 2006 Co-located with ISWC06 and RuleML06. http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/OWLWorkshop06.html Summary ------- Submissions due: 7th of August, 2006 Notification of acceptance: 11th of September, 2006 Final versions due: 9th of October, 2006 Workshop: 10-11th of November, 2006 Workshop proceedings will be published online. Call for Papers --------------- The W3C OWL Web Ontology Language has been a W3C recommendation since 2004. OWL is playing an important role in an increasing number and range of applications, and is the focus of research into tools, reasoning techniques, formal foundations, language extensions etc. This level of experience with OWL means that the community is now in a good position to discuss how OWL be applied, adapted and extended to fulfill current and future application demands. The aim of the OWLED workshop series is to establish a forum for practitioners in industry and academia, tool developers, and others interested in OWL to describe real and potential applications, to share experience, and to discuss requirements for language extensions/modifications. The workshop will bring users, implementors and researchers together to measure the state of need against the state of the art, and to set an agenda for research and deployment in order to incorporate OWL-based technologies into new applications. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to the following: - Applications of and experience with OWL - Application-driven requirements for OWL - Performance and scalability issues - Extensions to OWL, including - non-monotonic extensions - rules extensions - extensions for representing temporal and spatial information - extended property constructors - keys - extended class constructors - extended datatype constructors - probabilistic and fuzzy Extensions - Implementation techniques for OWL and related languages - Reasoning-related tasks for OWL, including explanation - Security and Trust for OWL-based information - Tools for OWL, including - editors - visualisation tools - parsers and syntax checkers - versioning frameworks - OWL based Semantic Web Service frameworks Characteristics of OWLED06 -------------------------- The 2006 OWLED workshop shall in particular - further the interaction between theoreticians, tool builders, and implementors; - help consolidating OWL 1.1; - initiate the development of OWL 2.0; and - aid in clarifying the relationships between OWL and rules. For OWLED06, we particularly encourage submissions on any of the following topics: - Experiences with OWL 1.1 - Implementation issues with OWL 1.1 - Demos of OWL 1.1 implementations - Requirements for a potential OWL 2.0 revision - Modeling and reasoning with OWL and rules - Survey papers - System descriptions Submissions can be either technical papers or short "position" papers. Submissions that base their conclusions on application experience are especially encouraged. Workshop Format --------------- The goal of the workshop will be to maximise discussion. The technical sessions will therefore consist of short presentations of papers (grouped by topic area) followed by directed discussion. Further presentations and system demonstrations will be made as part of a poster session. The workshop may also have one session in common with the Second International Conference on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (RuleML06) in which the integration of OWL with rules languages will be discussed. Submission details ------------------ Submissions must be in PDF, and will not be accepted in any other format. It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure that their submission displays and prints correctly on common PDF viewers. Submissions must be formatted in the style of the Springer Publications format for Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). For details see http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,5-164-2-72376-0,00.html All papers must be submitted online using the submission website at http://www.easychair.org/OWL2006 Technical paper submissions must be no longer than 10 pages, and shorter submissions are welcome. Position paper submissions must be no longer than 4 pages. All submissions must be received before 11:59 PM PST 7th of August 2006. Submission will be via the workshop web site. All relevant submissions will be made available from the workshop web site; these may be updated with final versions after the reviewing process. Presentation materials from the workshop will also be placed on the web site. All submissions will be reviewed by the workshop committee. Decisions on the acceptance of papers will be communicated to authors no later than 11th September 2006. Reviewing and Participation --------------------------- All submissions will be reviewed by the programme committee. Authors of accepted papers plus programme committee members will be invited to participate in the workshop. Authors who need invitations before the notification date should send a message to the workshop committee at owl-ws-organizers at mindswap.org indicating why they need an advance invitation and provide their qualifications to receive an invitation. Applications from other interested parties will be considered after submission-based invitations have been extended, but numbers will be strictly limited. Prospective participants are welcome to submit a two-page statement of interest (in PDF LLNCS format) by emailing it as an attachment to owl-ws-organizers at mindswap.org. These statements will be considered in determining invitations, and will be made available on the workshop web site. Venue ----- The Workshop will take place at the Classic Center (http://classiccenter.com/) in Athens, Georgia, U. S. A. (about two miles away from the location of ISWC 2006). For more venue information, including how to reach Athens, see the General Information section of the ISWC 2006 web site (http://iswc2006.semanticweb.org/). There will be shuttle services between ISWC and OWLED locations. Steering Committee ------------------ Ian Horrocks, University of Manchester (UK) Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland (USA) Peter Patel-Schneider, Bell Labs (USA) Workshop Organising Committee ----------------------------- Bernardo Cuenca Grau, University of Manchester (UK) Pascal Hitzler, AIFB, University of Karlsruhe (Germany) Conor Shankey, Visual Knowledge Software Inc. (USA) Evan Wallace, NIST (USA) Programme Committee ------------------- Dean Allemang, TopQuadrant (USA) Michael Champion, Microsoft (USA) Kendall Clark, University of Maryland (USA) Giuseppe DeGiacomo, Universita di Roma ``La Sapienza'' (Italy) Nick Gibbins, University of Southampton (UK) Jennifer Golbeck, University of Maryland (USA) Christine Golbreich, University Rennes 2 (France) Volker Haarslev, Concordia University (Canada) Joanne Luciano, Harvard Medical School (USA) Carsten Lutz, TU Dresden (Germany) Ashok Malhotra, Oracle (USA) Massimo Marchiori, W3C at MIT (USA) Boris Motik, University of Manchester (UK) Enrico Motta, Open University (UK) Ryusuke Masuoka, Fujitsu Laboratories of America (USA) Gary Ng, Cerebra (USA) Natasha Noy, Stanford University (USA) Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland (USA) Terry Payne, University of Southampton (UK) Alan Ruttenberg, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, (USA) Riccardo Rosati, Universita di Roma ``La Sapienza'' (Italy) Ulrike Sattler, University of Manchester (UK) Andrew Schain, NASA (USA) Guus Schreiber, Vrije Universitat Amsterdam (Netherlands) Valentina Tamma, University of Liverpool (UK) Sergio Tessaris, Free University of Bolzano (Italy) -- Dr. habil. Pascal Hitzler Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe email: hitzler at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de fax: +49 721 608 6580 web: http://www.pascal-hitzler.de phone: +49 721 608 4751 http://www.neural-symbolic.org From ewallace at cme.nist.gov Fri Jul 28 11:08:28 2006 From: ewallace at cme.nist.gov (ewallace at cme.nist.gov) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OWL] UML into OWL Message-ID: <200607281508.LAA02107@clue.mel.nist.gov> Enrico Franconi wrote: >The article AIJ-2005.html> is a precise and provably correct description of the >encoding of UML class diagrams in OWL-Lite ontologies, and of OWL-DL >(without nominals) ontologies in UML class diagrams, overcoming the >naïvetes of the ODM document below. That's a bold claim given that UML is an imprecise language with no formal semantics. This ambiguity has led authors of UML models to have different interpretations of the language when modeling. Thus a given mapping won't be correct for all models. Furthermore, a mapping for, say, converting legacy UML models to OWL would include pragmatic concerns that wouldn't apply if the OWL was never to be seen or manipulated by domain experts. In such a scenario, one would want to convert to OWL that would look like what a domain expert would produce directly in OWL. Because of the mismatches between these two languages a "safe" mapping (one that preserves distinctions in the UML that may or may not have been intended) won't do this. These are some of the issues that led us to make any UML-OWL mapping in ODM be non-normative. One mapping simply won't fit all needs for UML-OWL conversion. On the other hand, I already said the mapping chapter in ODM is rough. I haven't read the referenced paper yet, but it looks like an interesting contribution to this subject. -Evan Evan K. Wallace - OMG Ontology PSIG chair Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST From evren at cs.umd.edu Fri Jul 28 23:40:42 2006 From: evren at cs.umd.edu (Evren Sirin) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> I don't think this (i.e. anything with rdf:nodeID) is expressable in abstract syntax. See the following bit from Section 2.2 of OWL S&AS [1]: "An individual can be given an individualID that will denote that individual, and can be used to refer to that individual. However, an individual need not be given an individualID; such individuals are anonymous (blank in RDF terms) and cannot be directly referred to elsewhere. The syntax here is set up to somewhat mirror RDF/XML syntax [RDF Syntax] without the use of rdf:nodeID." Cheers, Evren [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#2.2 On 7/27/2006 2:59 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > In other words, what abstract syntax would I write in order that the > following RDF serialization would be generated? > > (RDF headers omitted) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl > -- Evren Sirin evren at cs.umd.edu Graduate Research Assistant Computer Science Department Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 Phone: (301) 405-7027, Fax: (301) 405-6707 From alanruttenberg at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 01:27:54 2006 From: alanruttenberg at gmail.com (Alan Ruttenberg) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:27:54 -0400 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> Message-ID: <14a88e43afacb2c36f904c064029f4b3@gmail.com> So if this is the case, then how can the rdf in question be considered valid OWL, which I understand to be defined in terms of the abstract syntax? -Alan On Jul 28, 2006, at 11:40 PM, Evren Sirin wrote: > I don't think this (i.e. anything with rdf:nodeID) is expressable in > abstract syntax. See the following bit from Section 2.2 of OWL S&AS > [1]: > > "An individual can be given an individualID that will denote that > individual, and can be used to refer to that individual. However, an > individual need not be given an individualID; such individuals are > anonymous (blank in RDF terms) and cannot be directly referred to > elsewhere. The syntax here is set up to somewhat mirror RDF/XML syntax > [RDF Syntax] without the use of rdf:nodeID." > > Cheers, > Evren > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#2.2 > > On 7/27/2006 2:59 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> In other words, what abstract syntax would I write in order that the >> following RDF serialization would be generated? >> >> (RDF headers omitted) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Alan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OWL mailing list >> OWL at lists.mindswap.org >> http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl >> > > -- > Evren Sirin evren at cs.umd.edu > Graduate Research Assistant > Computer Science Department > Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 > Phone: (301) 405-7027, Fax: (301) 405-6707 > > From gstoil at image.ece.ntua.gr Sat Jul 29 03:04:15 2006 From: gstoil at image.ece.ntua.gr (gstoil at image.ece.ntua.gr) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:04:15 -0000 Subject: [OWL] CFP: Multimedia Analysis and Uncertainty Representation Message-ID: <200607290704.k6T74FSl008822@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FOR PAPERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- First International Workshop on Multimedia Analysis and Uncertainty Representation (MAUR) Half Day Workshop http://image.ntua.gr/events/maur/web/ First International Conference on Semantic and Digital Media Technologies (6-8 December 2006) Wednesday December 6 2006 – Athens, Greece http://samt2006.org/index.html DESCRIPTION Multimedia processing like analysis and retrieval are inherently difficult tasks. In order to assist multimedia processing algorithms and applications, researchers are proposing ways to enrich multimedia algorithms with knowledge representational formalisms. In this way the multimedia processing techniques could take advantage of formal representation and automated reasoning methods. On the other hand multimedia processing algorithms are usually facing a huge amount of uncertain and imprecise knowledge. Hence knowledge representational formalisms must be equipped with mechanisms that are able to cope with such type of knowledge. The last couple of years a quite impressive number of uncertainty handling formalism have been developed, like fuzzy and probabilistic Description Logics, fuzzy, possibilistic and probabilistic Logic Programming languages etc. Such logical formalisms combine expressive power and decidable reasoning techniques. The use of such formalisms in multimedia applications would greatly benefit these applications and will provide new research results. TOPICS Multimedia Content Representation and Reasoning. Image and Video Analysis with Uncertainty Reasoning. Segmentation. Recognition. Multimedia Information retrieval. Scene Interpretation. Automatic Annotation. Classification and indexing of multimedia information objects. IMPORTANT DATES Full Paper Submission: September 10, 2006 Acceptance Notification: October 1, 2006 Camera-Ready Papers due: November 2, 2006 Conference: December 6, 2006 SUBMISSION Each submission will be evaluated for acceptability by at leasttwo members of the Program Committee. Decisions about acceptance will be based on relevance to the above topic list, originality, potential significance, topicality and clarity. Since all accepted papers will be presented at the workshop, we require that at least one of the submitting authors must be a registered participant at the SAMT 2006 Conference, and committed to attend the MAUR Workshop. MAUR 2006 welcomes the submission of two kind of papers: short position paper (2 pages maximum in Springer LNCS format), giving a brief description of an on-going implementation, algorithm or system. full papers (8 pages maximum in Springer LNCS format), good original research and application papers of the topics of the workshop. Papers must be submitted directly by email in PDF format to gstoil at image.ece.ntua.gr prior to the paper submission deadline. Paper submissions must be formatted in the style of the Springer Publications format for Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). For complete details, see Information for LNCS Authors. All papers selected by the program committee will be published by provided by the SAMT. All papers accepted will be presented during the workshop. This would include 20 minutes presentation (15 minutes presentation + 5 minutes discussion) for full papers, while authors of accepted position papers will have a 5-minute slot to share their ideas. ORGANIZERS Giorgos Stoilos (National and Technical University of Athens) Jeff Z. Pan (Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen) Umberto Straccia (ISTI - Italian National Research Council at Pisa) PROGRAM COMMITTEE Alessio Cartocci (International Webmasters Association / HTML Writers Guild (IWA-HWG), US) Barbara Barry (MIT Media Lab, US) Carlos Viegas Damasio (Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal) Christian Halaschek (University of Maryland, USA) Ebroul Izquierdo (Queen Mary University of London, UK) Florence Sedes (IRIT, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse Cedex 4, France) Giorgos Stamou (National and Technical University of Athens, Greece) Massimo Martinelli (National Research Council - Institute of Information Science and Technologies, Italy) Qi Tian (University of Texas at San Antonio, US) Ralf Moeller (Hamburg University of Technology, Germany) Sofia Tsekeridou (Democritus University of Thrace School of Engineering Electrical & Computer Engineering Dept, Greece) Thomas Franz (Universitat Koblenz – Landau, Germany) Ying Li (IBM T.J. Watson Research Centre, USA) From jpan at csd.abdn.ac.uk Sat Jul 29 03:47:11 2006 From: jpan at csd.abdn.ac.uk (Jeff Z. Pan) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 08:47:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [OWL] 2nd CFP: The ISWC Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE06) Message-ID: <1387.87.114.6.42.1154159231.squirrel@www.csd.abdn.ac.uk> Apologies for cross-posting! ************************************************************************ * * CALL FOR PAPERS * submission deadline is approaching: about 14 days left * * 2nd Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering - SWESE06 * * http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/swese2006 * * located at the 5th International Semantic Web Conference ISWC2006 * 6th November 2006 * Athens, GA, USA * ************************************************************************ Workshop Description The advent of the World Wide Web has led many corporations to web-enable their business applications and to the adoption of web service standards in middleware platforms. Marking a turning point in the development of the Web, the Semantic Web is expected to provide more benefits to software engineering. Over the past five years there have been a number of attempts to bring together languages and tools, such as the UML, developed for Software Engineering with Semantic Web languages such as RDF and OWL. The Semantic Web Best Practice and Deployment Working Group (SWBPD) in W3C has started a Software Engineering Task Force (SETF) to investigate potential benefits. Another recent related international standardisation activity is OMG's Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM). It has been argued that the advantages of Semantic Web Technologies in software engineering include reusability and extensibility of data models, improvements in data quality, and discovery and automated execution of workflows. According to SETF's recent note "A Semantic Web Primer for Object-Oriented Software Developers" (http://www.w3.org/TR/sw-oosd-primer/), the Semantic Web can serve as a platform on which domain models can be created, shared and reused. However, are there any other potential benefits related to the reversal of this approach and the use of Semantic Web concepts in the field of Software Engineering? Could the Web-based, semantically rich formality of OWL be combined with emerging model driven envelopment tools such as the Eclipse Modelling Framework to provide some badly needed improvements in both the process and product of software development activities? What is it about the amalgamation of OWL, UML and the Model Driven Architecture (MDA) that could make a difference? Certainly, there appear to be a number of strong arguments in favour of this approach but consensus on the best way forward, or if there is indeed a way forward at all has not yet formed. This workshop seeks to explore and evaluate this area. The popularity and power of the MDA approach has made many software development practitioners familiar with modelling and appreciative of additional levels of abstraction in their models. In parallel, Semantic Web language standards have arrived at substantial tool support that also provide a means of describing models, but providing different capabilities than the UML and MOF models typical of MDA tools. The advantages of bridging these approaches has been compelling enough for tool vendors to build products which do this and to spend considerable effort defining an OMG standard for these products (ODM). While the primary purpose of these efforts is to enable SW development with MDA tools, the bridge could also be exploited in the other direction. We think with the standards for this bridge close to completion, the time IS right to explore the potential created by the flow of capabilities of the Semantic Web into the software development environment. The workshop organizers believe that the informal nature of the workshop, located at the major event on the Semantic Web, will aid to further exchange between practitioners and researchers working on these and other issues related to Semantic Web enabled software engineering by providing a forum for discussing the major challenges of the area and the different approach being taken to resolve them. In fact, the 1st SWESE workshop at ISWC2005 turned out to be a huge success with more than 50 participants in the full day workshop. Intended Audience While the intended audience for this workshop includes those with experience or interest in Semantic Web languages and tools, it is also crucial to have participation by those with expertise in other areas such as Automatic Software Engineering, Software Engineering, OO/UML/MDA, Semantic Web, and Software/legacy Modernization. Topics of interest include but are not limited to: - Visions for Semantic Web driven software engineering - Tools developed or being developed for software engineering using SW languages - Integration or application development projects combining Software Engineering techniques and Semantic Web tools or languages - Lessons learned in Automatic Software Engineering or KBSE applicable to SW based SE - Shortcomings with the Semantic Web with respect to Software Engineering - Uses, extensions and/or issues with ODM - Visions for SW driven software modernization - Integration of UML, OO programming languages and Semantic Web languages - Integration of formal methods and Semantic Web languages - Software specification and Semantic Web languages - Ontologies for software engineering - Component discovery and ontologies - Feature modelling and ontologies - Ontology reasoning for software engineering - Semantic annotations in software engineering - Ontology-Driven Architecture: How to introduce Semantic Web technology into mainstream development processes Workshop Format and Attendance This will be an all day workshop a poster session and technical talks discussing competing visions for Semantic Web enabled software engineering (final format will be dependent on submissions; keynotes and panel are pending). This workshop is open to all members of the ISWC community, as well as other communities identified in the Intended Audience discussion above. Submission of a paper is not required for attendance at the workshop.However, in the event that the workshop cannot accommodate all who would like to participate, those who have submitted a paper will be given priority for registration. All workshop attendees must pay the ISWC2006 workshop registration fee, as well as the conference registration fee. We encourage those who plan to attend this workshop, to register early in order to help conference organizers with their planning as well as insure that the workshop is not cancelled do to projected poor attendance. Organizing Committee Elisa F. Kendall, Sandpiper Software Daniel Oberle, SAP Research Jeff Z. Pan, University of Aberdeen (contact) Phil Tetlow, IBM Marwan Sabbouh, MITRE Corporation Holger Knublauch, Top Quadrant Software Program Committee Colin Atkinson (DE), University of Mannheim Ken Baclawski (US), Northeastern University Roberta Cuel (IT), University of Trento Jin Song Dong (SG), National University of Singapore Dragan Gasevic, (CA) Simon Fraser University Surrey Michael Goedicke (DE), University of Essen Mitch Kokar (US), Northeastern University Alex Kozlenkov (UK), Betfair Alain Leger (FR), France Telecon Bob Lojek (UK), IBM David Martin (US), SRI International Jishnu Mukerji (US), Hewlett-Packard Company Steffen Staab (DE), University of Koblenz Michael K. Smith (US), Electronic Data System Evan Wallace (US), NIST Hai Wang (UK), University of Manchester Submissions and Publication We invite three forms of submission to this workshop: Full papers Short position papers Posters Format required for submissions: Full technical papers should not exceed fifteen pages in length, while the body of short position papers should not exceed two pages. Papers can be submitted at the website http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/swese2006. Please use the Springer's LNCS format for accepted papers. Complete details on this format are available at Springeronline http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,5-164-2-72376-0, 00.html]. Technical papers will be peer reviewed by a group of experts representing a cross-section of fields relevant to Semantic Web enabled software engineering. Publication: All accepted papers will be published online as part of the workshop proceedings. A publication of extended versions of the best technical papers of the workshop in a journal is pending. Important Dates 10 August 2006 - Paper submission deadline 31 August 2006 - Notification of acceptance to authors 16 September 2006 - Camera-ready version of accepted papers Sunday, 6 November 2006 - Workshop From chimezie at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 11:47:43 2006 From: chimezie at gmail.com (Chimezie Ogbuji) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:47:43 -0400 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> Message-ID: On 7/28/06, Evren Sirin wrote: > I don't think this (i.e. anything with rdf:nodeID) is expressable in > abstract syntax. See the following bit from Section 2.2 of OWL S&AS [1]: I think rdf:nodeID has similar syntax to ID, so that would resolve to a URI reference, an identifier. The abstract syntax you would use would depend on the base URI of the containing document. So, the name of the individual would be the base URI + the rdf:nodeID. From evren at cs.umd.edu Sat Jul 29 12:32:55 2006 From: evren at cs.umd.edu (Evren Sirin) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:32:55 -0400 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> Message-ID: <44CB8DB7.3030909@cs.umd.edu> On 7/29/2006 11:47 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > On 7/28/06, Evren Sirin wrote: >> I don't think this (i.e. anything with rdf:nodeID) is expressable in >> abstract syntax. See the following bit from Section 2.2 of OWL S&AS [1]: > > > I think rdf:nodeID has similar syntax to ID, so that would resolve to > a URI reference No, not at all. rdf:nodeID is used to identify blank nodes and it allows one to refer the same blank node in multiple places. See Section 2.10 in RDF/XML specification [1]. Cheers, Evren [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-blank-nodes > , an identifier. The abstract syntax you would use > would depend on the base URI of the containing document. So, the name > of the individual would be the base URI + the rdf:nodeID. From evren at cs.umd.edu Sat Jul 29 13:20:09 2006 From: evren at cs.umd.edu (Evren Sirin) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:20:09 -0400 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: <14a88e43afacb2c36f904c064029f4b3@gmail.com> References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> <14a88e43afacb2c36f904c064029f4b3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <44CB98C9.3090002@cs.umd.edu> On 7/29/2006 1:27 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > So if this is the case, then how can the rdf in question be considered > valid OWL, which I understand to be defined in terms of the abstract > syntax? I'm not sure. This looks similar to the case where there are valid RDF graphs which cannot be serialized in RDF/XML, e.g. when no QName can be generated for the property as in: . So my understanding is that your example is a valid OWL-Lite ontology which cannot be represented in abstract syntax. This might raise some concern about the semantics since it is given in terms of the abstract syntax. But it is very straight-forward to define the semantics for multiply referenced blank nodes and that is why I think it is valid OWL. Maybe someone else can shed a better light on the subject. Evren > > -Alan > > On Jul 28, 2006, at 11:40 PM, Evren Sirin wrote: > >> I don't think this (i.e. anything with rdf:nodeID) is expressable in >> abstract syntax. See the following bit from Section 2.2 of OWL S&AS [1]: >> >> "An individual can be given an individualID that will denote that >> individual, and can be used to refer to that individual. However, an >> individual need not be given an individualID; such individuals are >> anonymous (blank in RDF terms) and cannot be directly referred to >> elsewhere. The syntax here is set up to somewhat mirror RDF/XML >> syntax [RDF Syntax] without the use of rdf:nodeID." >> >> Cheers, >> Evren >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#2.2 >> >> On 7/27/2006 2:59 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >>> In other words, what abstract syntax would I write in order that >>> the following RDF serialization would be generated? >>> >>> (RDF headers omitted) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alan >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OWL mailing list >>> OWL at lists.mindswap.org >>> http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl >>> >> >> -- >> Evren Sirin evren at cs.umd.edu >> Graduate Research Assistant >> Computer Science Department >> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 >> Phone: (301) 405-7027, Fax: (301) 405-6707 >> >> From alanruttenberg at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 23:36:24 2006 From: alanruttenberg at gmail.com (Alan Ruttenberg) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 23:36:24 -0400 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: <44CB98C9.3090002@cs.umd.edu> References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> <14a88e43afacb2c36f904c064029f4b3@gmail.com> <44CB98C9.3090002@cs.umd.edu> Message-ID: <3EC3FD78-71E4-473B-95D0-09E202633CE0@gmail.com> On Jul 29, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Evren Sirin wrote: > I'm not sure. This looks similar to the case where there are valid > RDF graphs which cannot be serialized in RDF/XML, e.g. when no > QName can be generated for the property as in: > > example.org/object> . Ho Ho. Hadn't noticed that one :) But this isn't really the same thing, as it isn't really rdfxml specific. I could express the same thing in some other rdf serialization. > So my understanding is that your example is a valid OWL-Lite > ontology which cannot be represented in abstract syntax. This might > raise some concern about the semantics since it is given in terms > of the abstract syntax. But it is very straight-forward to define > the semantics for multiply referenced blank nodes and that is why I > think it is valid OWL. Well, the semantics is the part that I'm confused about. I had been conceiving anonymous individuals in OWL as simply individuals who didn't happen to have a name. But in RDF, bnodes are existentials which is a different type of thing. OWL has existentials "natively", so to speak, without having to resort to bnodes. So there are some rdf graphs with a bnode that could be represented without a bnode/ anonymous individual in OWL. Now compare the version that doesn't use a bnode in OWL, to the one that does. Do they mean the same thing? This comes up in trying to understand what the status of bnodes that are returned as the result of SPARQL queries. If you follow the lead of having the scoping set being the set of terms in the graph being queried, then you come to the conclusion that depending on which form you render the existential (with or without using a bnode), you will get different results. Different answers to the same query would suggest different meanings of the OWL statements, which would imply that an anonymous individual is not the same as a bnode. If that's the case it would be helpful to understand exactly what the difference is. -Alan From franconi at inf.unibz.it Sun Jul 30 02:38:23 2006 From: franconi at inf.unibz.it (Enrico Franconi) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:38:23 +0200 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: <3EC3FD78-71E4-473B-95D0-09E202633CE0@gmail.com> References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> <14a88e43afacb2c36f904c064029f4b3@gmail.com> <44CB98C9.3090002@cs.umd.edu> <3EC3FD78-71E4-473B-95D0-09E202633CE0@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 30 Jul 2006, at 05:36, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > This comes up in trying to understand what the status of bnodes that > are returned as the result of SPARQL queries. If you follow the lead > of having the scoping set being the set of terms in the graph being > queried, then you come to the conclusion that depending on which form > you render the existential (with or without using a bnode), you will > get different results. Different answers to the same query would > suggest different meanings of the OWL statements, which would imply > that an anonymous individual is not the same as a bnode. If that's > the case it would be helpful to understand exactly what the > difference is. This was discussed in the SPARQL group. If the e-entailment regime is standard ABox entailment, then autmatically the well-formedness condition on SPARQL rules out bnodes in the answer set. If you want to allow bnodes in the SPARQL answer to OWL-DL graphs, then an e- entailment in OWL-DL involving bnodes should be used. The research community has yet to define/study an e-entailment regime of the kind "OWL-DL KB" |= "ABox with bnodes". I am not aware of any paper characterising formally this entailment. cheers --e. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2425 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/owl/attachments/20060730/6f9201db/attachment.bin From bparsia at isr.umd.edu Mon Jul 31 05:35:27 2006 From: bparsia at isr.umd.edu (Bijan Parsia) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:35:27 +0100 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 29, 2006, at 4:40 AM, Evren Sirin wrote: > I don't think this (i.e. anything with rdf:nodeID) is expressable in > abstract syntax. Sure it is. See the transformation that generates _:x :) > See the following bit from Section 2.2 of OWL S&AS [1]: > > "An individual can be given an individualID that will denote that > individual, and can be used to refer to that individual. However, an > individual need not be given an individualID; such individuals are > anonymous (blank in RDF terms) and cannot be directly referred to > elsewhere. The syntax here is set up to somewhat mirror RDF/XML syntax > [RDF Syntax] without the use of rdf:nodeID." Right but rdf:nodeID can be used to to express RDF graphs that are also expressable without BNodes ;) Cheers, Bijan. From bparsia at isr.umd.edu Mon Jul 31 05:40:11 2006 From: bparsia at isr.umd.edu (Bijan Parsia) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:40:11 +0100 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: <44CB98C9.3090002@cs.umd.edu> References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> <14a88e43afacb2c36f904c064029f4b3@gmail.com> <44CB98C9.3090002@cs.umd.edu> Message-ID: <3F01344A-6355-4D3F-A793-7F8D8BBE2517@isr.umd.edu> On Jul 29, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Evren Sirin wrote: > On 7/29/2006 1:27 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> So if this is the case, then how can the rdf in question be >> considered >> valid OWL, which I understand to be defined in terms of the abstract >> syntax? > I'm not sure. This looks similar to the case where there are valid RDF > graphs which cannot be serialized in RDF/XML, Nope. OWL is defined in terms of the abstract syntax. If an RDF/XML graph cannot be reverse transformed into an abstract syntax form then, by definition, it isn't OWL DL or Lite. > e.g. when no QName can be > generated for the property as in: > > > . > > So my understanding is that your example is a valid OWL-Lite ontology > See above. > which cannot be represented in abstract syntax. > This might raise some > concern about the semantics since it is given in terms of the abstract > syntax. But it is very straight-forward to define the semantics for > multiply referenced blank nodes and that is why I think it is valid > OWL. While it is, it's not so easy to determine the metatheoretical results. For example, until we know whether the evaluation of cyclic conjunctive queries with transitive roles is decidable, we don't know if entailment of OWL DL ontologies with arbitrary bnodes is decidable. > Maybe someone else can shed a better light on the subject. I hope I did :) Basically, the only patterns of BNodes allowed in OWL DL and OWL LIte are certain tree patterns. If we lifted this restriction then we could express arbitrary conjunctive queries as OWL DL ontologies. More, we could express arbitrary conjunctive queries as *part of* OWL DL ontologies. Cheers, Bijan. From bparsia at isr.umd.edu Mon Jul 31 05:49:36 2006 From: bparsia at isr.umd.edu (Bijan Parsia) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:49:36 +0100 Subject: [OWL] What's the abstract syntax for this validated OWL-Lite RDF? In-Reply-To: <3EC3FD78-71E4-473B-95D0-09E202633CE0@gmail.com> References: <44CAD8BA.6040807@cs.umd.edu> <14a88e43afacb2c36f904c064029f4b3@gmail.com> <44CB98C9.3090002@cs.umd.edu> <3EC3FD78-71E4-473B-95D0-09E202633CE0@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:36 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Jul 29, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Evren Sirin wrote: [snip] >> So my understanding is that your example is a valid OWL-Lite >> ontology which cannot be represented in abstract syntax. This might >> raise some concern about the semantics since it is given in terms >> of the abstract syntax. But it is very straight-forward to define >> the semantics for multiply referenced blank nodes and that is why I >> think it is valid OWL. > > Well, the semantics is the part that I'm confused about. I had been > conceiving anonymous individuals in OWL as simply individuals who > didn't happen to have a name. Nope. > But in RDF, bnodes are existentials As they are in OWL. > which is a different type of thing. OWL has existentials "natively", In two ways :) > so to speak, without having to resort to bnodes. So there are some > rdf graphs with a bnode that could be represented without a bnode/ > anonymous individual in OWL. Yep. They should be equivalent. > Now compare the version that doesn't use > a bnode in OWL, to the one that does. Do they mean the same thing? Yes. > This comes up in trying to understand what the status of bnodes that > are returned as the result of SPARQL queries. If you follow the lead > of having the scoping set being the set of terms in the graph being > queried, then you come to the conclusion that depending on which form > you render the existential (with or without using a bnode), you will > get different results. Yeah, but you *really* don't want to do that. Remember that the point of using *exactly* the terms in the graph in the scoping set is to get something akin to naive graph matching. I.e., exactly the redundancy in the answers as their is in the graph. This isn't going to fly for OWL DL, in general, partly for the reason you point out, but also because that really kills some of the interesting use of BNodes in answers (to express coreferences of existentials). > Different answers to the same query would > suggest different meanings of the OWL statements, which would imply > that an anonymous individual is not the same as a bnode. Well, it suggests that the query is sensitive to some feature of the statements that is different. In this case, it is the syntactic form. > If that's > the case it would be helpful to understand exactly what the > difference is. Syntactic form. It's like doing an XPath query for nodeIDs and matching: ... But not this: ... (where the contents of the element are the same). They mean the same thing, but the query language is able to distinguish them because it is sensitive to the syntax, not the semantics. Cheers, Bijan.