# Presentation: 509316

## ISO/IEC CD 19763-3MMF 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**

## 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)

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## About MMF Project

- MMF Project is one of the ongoing ISO/IEC standardization projects.
- Official Title:ISO/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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
In this part we are collaborating with US XMDR people.

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Outline

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

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

- Objectives

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

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

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
cartoony  communication cannot be established

## Reference ontology and local ontology

- Reference Ontology3

- Local Ontology for application system A

- Local Ontology for application system B

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

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

- Reference Ontology1

- Reference Ontology2

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## With Reference Ontology

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

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

- 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
MMF MMFI

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
AL: attributive language, C: Complement, D: Datatype, O: one of, H:role hierarchies, I:Inverse Role, 
Q: Quantified Restriction, N:number restriction, F:number restriction with the formula
OWL LOGHT: SHIF(D), OWL DL: SHOIN(D)

SNOMED CT

## 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(>2) 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

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Common basic structure of ontology

- A very simplified but common three granularity level structure is;

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
41/108 MDR

## MMF Ontology Registration structure(2)

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## View from of ontology description languages

- expression

- term

- sentence
- (in a broad sense)

- definition

- sentence (or clause)
- (in a narrow sense)

- composite term

- Atomic term

- logical symbol
- (in a broad sense)

- logical symbol
- (in a narrow sense)

- variable

- unary predicate
- (or concept)

- N-nary predicate
- (or role, relation)

- sentence letter
- (o-ary predicate)

- predicate

- Almost any FOLs have these hierarchies.

- This corresponds to Ontology Component

- This corresponds to Ontology Atomic Construct

- individual
- (or object)

- symbol

- non logical symbol

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
except CL does not distinguish non logical symbol and variables

## Example : OWL Wine Ontology (1 of 3)

- Ontolgy
- Administrative information etc. corresponding to a whole ontology ‘wine.xml’ at http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
- Ontology_Component
- Administrative information etc. corresponding to
- <owl:Class rdf:ID="WhiteWine">
-  <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
- <owl:Class rdf:about="#Wine" />
- <owl:Restriction>
- <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor" />
- <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#White" />
- </owl:Restriction>
- </owl:intersectionOf>
-  	</owl:Class> ,
- <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasVintageYear">
- <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;FunctionalProperty" />
- <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Vintage" />
- <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#VintageYear" />
- 	</owl:ObjectProperty> ,  etc...

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
There are two cases about the name of sentences.
One is names are provided in ontology itself.
The other is names are provided outside ontology.

## 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...

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Example : OWL Wine Ontology (3 of 3)

- Note
- MMF Ontology Registration does not specify the granularity level of a sentence.
-  It is its owner’s choice from the point of management, re-use etc.
- In the case of OWL Wine Ontology, it is natural that each identified by rdf:ID be treated as a sentence because most of them are definitions.
- But there are some without rdf:ID.
- For example,
- <owl:Class rdf:about="#WhiteLoire">
- <rdfs:subClassOf>
- <owl:Restriction>
- ...
- </owl:Restriction>
-   </rdfs:subClassOf>
-   	</owl:Class>
- From the point of MMF Ontology Registration, it is better that
- all the sentences at some granularity level be identified by rdf:ID
- OWL have a mechanism to import other ontologies by sentence

- <owl:AllDifferent>
- <owl:distinctMembers rdf:parseType="Collection">
- <vin:Winery rdf:about="#Bancroft" />
- ...
- <vin:Winery rdf:about="#WhitehallLane" />
- </owl:distinctMembers>
- 	</owl:AllDifferent>

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Example :SUMO

- Ontology
- Administrative information etc. corresponding to
- 	SUMO at _[http://virtual.](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/)__[cvut](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/)__[.](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/)__[cz](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/)__[/](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/)__[kifb](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/)__[/en/](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/)_
- Ontology Component
- Administrative information etc. corresponding to
- 	(_[=>](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/-eq-lt.html)_ (_[and](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/and.html)_ (_[instance](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/instance.html)_ ?LANG _[AnimalLanguage](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/_animal_language.html)_) (_[agent](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/agent.html)_ ?PROC ?AGENT) (_[instrument](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/instrument.html)_ ?PROC ?LANG)) (_[and](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/and.html)_ (_[instance](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/instance.html)_ ?AGENT _[Animal](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/_animal.html)_) (_[not](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/not.html)_ (_[instance](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/instance.html)_ ?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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

- Metamodel

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Core portion of MMF Ontology Registration metamodel

- Reference Ontology:
- standardized ontology
-   for some business domain
- relatively stable

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

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
digestive organ internal medicine

## Whole metamodel of MMF Ontology Registration

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

- Relation to OMG ODM

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Scope of MMF Ontology Registration

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM

**Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM**

- Ontology

- UML2
- Metamodel

- OWL/RDFS
- Metamodel

- SCL
- Metamodel

- ER
- Metamodel

- TM
- Metamodel

- DL
- Metamodel

-   Ontology
- described
- in OWL/RDFS

- Ontology Component

- Atomic_Onto_Construct

**ODM:**

- MMF Ontology Registration

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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))))

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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
- <owl:Class rdf:ID="Mother">
- 	 <owl:equivalentClass>
- 	  <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
- 	   <owl:Class rdf:about="#Woman"/>
- 	   <owl:Restriction>
- 	    <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasChild"/>
- 	    <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Person"/>
- 	   </owl:Restriction>
- 	  </owl:intersectionOf>
- 	 </owl:equivalentClass>
- 	</owl:Class>
- In DL
- Mother WomanhasChild.Person
- Note: Surface syntaxes are quite different, but the structures are similar.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Comments on ODM (4 of 6)Object diagram in CL metamodel 

- (forall x (iff (Mother x) (and (Woman x) (exist y (and (hasChild x y) (Person y)))):UniversalQuantification

- Example :CLText

-  (iff (Mother x) (and (Woman x) (exist y (and (hasChild x y) (Person y)))):Equivalence

- x:Binding

- (Mother x) :ApplicationOfRelation

- Mother:LogicalName

-  (and (Woman x) (exist y (and (hasChild x y) (Person y))):Conjunction

-  (Woman x) :ApplicationOfRelation

- (exist y (and (hasChild x y) (Person y))):ExistentialQuantification

- y:Binding

- (and (hasChild x y) (Person y)):Conjunction

- (hasChild x y) :ApplicationOfRelation

-  (Person y):ApplicationOfRelation

- Person:LogicalName

- hasChild:LogicalName

- Example_Modeule  :CL Module

- Sentence

- Woman:LogicalName

- This corresponds to Ontology in MMF

- These corresponds to Ontology_Atomic_Constructs in MMF

- This corresponds to Ontology_Component in MMF

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Comments on ODM (5 of 6) Object diagram in OWL metamodel

- Mother : OWLClass

- Woman : OWLClass

- Person : OWLClass

- hasChild : OWLObjectProperty

- * : IntersectionClass

- +OWLequivalentClass

- +OWLintersectionOf

- +OWLintersectionOfcc

- **: SomeValuesFromRestriction

- +OWLonProperty

- +OWLsomeValuesFrom

-  Example: OWLOntology

- RDFSResource

- ???

- ???

- This corresponds to Ontology in MMF

- These corresponds to Ontology_Atomic_Constructs in MMF

- This association corresponds to Ontology_Component in MMF.
- Since OWLOntology can only contain RDFSResource,
- this association cannot be contained in the ontology.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- Example1:OWLOntology

- Example2:OWLOntology

- People:OWLClass

- Person:OWLClass

- +OWLequivalentClass

- +RDFSsubClassOf

- This association should be contained in Example1.

- This association should be contained in Example1.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

- Example
- to show how MMF Ontology Registration works

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Example1:Without MMF Ontology Registration

- Local Ontology  LO1

- Local Ontology LO2

**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?

- Tony???  I do not know Tony.

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

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

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

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
cartoony  communication cannot be established

## Example1: with MMF Ontology Registration

- Local Ontology  LO1

- Local Ontology LO2

- Tell  me  to whom Tony sent an e-mail?

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

- Agent of MMF Ontology Registration
- tells agent A that agent B can answer it.

**MMF Ontology Registration**

**Agent A **
**of the application system based on LO1**** **

**Agent B**** **
**of the application system **
**based on LO2**

- Reference Ontology
-  RO1

- Reference Ontology
-  RO2

- 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)

| Reference Ontology | RO1 | RO2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Local Ontology | LO1 | LO2 |

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

**Notes:**
cartoony  communication cannot be established

## Example1:Object Diagram of MMF Ontology Registration

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

- Thank you for your attention.
- Any questions and/or comments are welcome to
- 	okabe.masao@tepco.co.jp

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

- Annex
- More realistic example using ‘OWL Wine’ as a reference ontology.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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/wine
- +consistOf: all OIDs of Souce_Ontology_Component at next slide

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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 user’s 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_Atomic_Construct used in this component

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Premise(3)

- Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

- Wine: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
- +administrative information: ‘owl-wine’ authority etc.
- + namespace:http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine

- PotableLiquid: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
- +administrative information: ‘owl-wine’ authority etc.
- + namespace: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food

- etc.
- All symbols whose name space is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine

- etc.
- All symbols in owl_wine whose name space is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food.
- If owl_food is registered before owl_wine, owl_wine re-use  these symbols in owl_food.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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_Component ‘L0’ below.

- L0: Local_Ontology_Component
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine1’ authority etc.
- +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine1
- +use: 	OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and 	Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘myWine’ at next silde.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine1’ authority etc.
- +namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine1

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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/wine 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.
- +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine2
- +use: 	OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and 	Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘myWine’ at next silde.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Case2(3)

- Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
- Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

- Lxx: Local_Ontology_Component
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine2’ authority etc.
- +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine2
- +use: 	OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct used in this component
-        	 (same as OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct  used in ‘Cxx’)
- +sameAs:	OID of Reference_Ontology_Component ‘Cxx’

- Note: xx= 1 - 857

- myWine: Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine2’ authority etc.
- +namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine2

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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/wine 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.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.
- +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine3
- +use: 	OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and 	Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘myWine’ at next slide.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Case3(3)

- Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
- Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

- Cxx: Local_Ontology_Component
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine3’ authority etc.
- +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine3
- +use: 	OIDs of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct 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-20031209/wine)
- +sameAs:	OID of Reference_Ontology_Component ‘Cxx’  with namespace:  		http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine

- Note: xx= 1 - 857

- myWine: Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine3’ authority etc.
- +namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine3

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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/wine 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 xmlns:owl, 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_Components nor Reference_Ontolgy_Atomic_Constructs  are re-used.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## 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.
- +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
- +use: OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and  ‘myWine’ at next slide

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Case4(3)

- Local_Ontology_Component (continued)
- Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

- Cxx: Local_Ontology_Component
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
- +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
- +sameAs:	OID of Reference_Ontology_Component ‘Cxx’ at 	 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
- +use: 	OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomic_Constructs at next silide  used in this 	component

- Note: xx= 1 - 857

- myWine: Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construc
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
- +namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15

## Case4(4)

- Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct (continued)

- Wine : Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
- namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
- same_as: OID of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’  with namespace: 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine

- etc.

- PotableLiquid: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct
- +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc.
- +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4
- +sameAs:	OID of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘PotableLiquid’ with 	namespace  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food

- etc. etc.

- 東京電力株式会社・システム企画部・岡部雅夫    (無断複製・転載禁止)

- 2005-07-15