# Presentation: 391647

## MMF Ontology Registration

**He Keqing and OKABE, Masao**
**Project editor**
**MMF Ontology Registration**
**ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2**
**Ad hoc Liaison Meeting, XMDR, MMF and ODM**
**2005/01/28**

## About this document

- All the materials in this document are based on the discussion among and prepared by all the active members of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration Project.
- Japan;
- Hajime Horiuchi (Tokyo International Univ.)
- Masao Okabe (Project editor, TEPCO)
- Masaharu Obayashi (K-three)
- 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.)

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Contents

- Basic principle of MMF family
- Outline of MMF Ontology Registration structure
- Relation to ODM
- Evolution management for interoperability
- Relation to MMF Core

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Basic principle of MMF family

- MMF family do not intend to store a target  (model, ontology etc.) itself.
- MMF family  stores only the administrative information of the target and a reference to it with a proper granularity

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Why so, in terms of MMF Ontology Registration

- There are and will be various ontolgies in various standardized ontology description languages.
- For example, Galen(in OWL), SNOMED(in DL), SUO(in KIF(CL)), Italian Opera(in Topic Map)
- If MMF Ontology Registration contains the ontology itself, it cannot be independent of the structure of its language and difficult to be applied to various ontologies in various languages.
- On the other hand, the objectives of MMF Ontology Registration is to promote interoperability among ontology-based application systems in no matter what languages their ontologies are described.
- So, it should reflect only a common basic structure of ontologies and store their administrative information only so that it can be applied to various ontologies in various languages.

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Common basic structure of ontology

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

- An ontology consists of ontology components
- 	(or sentences, pieces of knowledge)
- 	e.g.  Example_Ontology consists of
- Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony)
- Buyer(Tony)
- Creditrating(Credit-A)
- A ontology component consists of
- 	atomic constructs  (symbol, or concepts and objects etc. or predicates and individuals etc.).
- e.g. Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony) consists of
- Buyer
- has
- ,  , 

- Creditrating
- Tony

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Common structure 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 is Ontology Component

- This is Atomic Ontology Construct  in MMF Ontology Registration

- This is Atomic Ontology Construct

- individual
- (or object)

- symbol

- non logical symbol

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Outline of MMF Ontology Registration structure

- Administrative information
- corresponding to
- Ontology

- Administrative information
- corresponding to
- Ontology Component

- Administrative information
- corresponding to
-  Atomic Ontology Construct

- e.g.
- 	Administrative information of Example_Ontology
- e.g.
- 	Administrative information of each
- Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony)
- Buyer(Tony)
- Creditrating(Credit-A)
- e.g.
- 	Administrative information of each
- Buyer
- has
- 	Note:Logical symbols such as ,  ,  are ignored.

- Creditrating
- Tony

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM(1)

**Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM(1)**

- 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:**

- We believe that an ontology can be stored in a ODM metamodel without any loss of information.

- We believe that ODM with XMI will provide a suitable interface to MMF Ontology Registration.

- MMF Ontology Registration

- Hereinafter called
- 	‘Ontology’ etc.
- 	just for simplification.

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Example 1 from ODM revised submission B.7.1

- #PersonalCar:Atomic_Onto_Construct
- administrative information

- #Car:Atomic_Onto_Construct
- administrative information

- #Vehicle:Atomic_Onto_Construct
- administrative information

- #owns:Atomic_Onto_Construct
- administrative information

- #Person:Atomic_Onto_Construct
- administrative information

- #Example1:Ontology
- administrative information

**MMF Ontology Registry**

- #e1:Onto_Component
- administrative information

- #e5:Onto_Component
- administrative information

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM(2)

- UML2
- Metamodel

- OWL/RDFS
- Metamodel

- SCL
- Metamodel

- ER
- Metamodel

- TM
- Metamodel

- DL
- Metamodel

-   Ontology
- described
- in OWL/RDFS

**ODM**
- (preliminary
-  revised
-  submission)

- MMF Ontology Registration

- UML2
- Metamodel

- OWL/RDFS
- Metamodel

- SCL
- Metamodel

- ER
- Metamodel

- TM
- Metamodel

- DL
- Metamodel

-   Ontology
- described
- in OWL/RDFS

**ODM**
- (revised
- submission)

- MMF Ontology Registration

- <now>

- <before>

- ODM Mapping

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## MMF Ontology Registration from the point of evolution management for interoperability

- In a valid variant source ontology,
- 	all knowledges in a source ontology is valid and there may be some new knowledges
- 	and some name changes for a local ontology.

- A local ontology selects
- 	its knowledges from
- 	a valid variant source ontology.

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

- Local ontology :
- localized ontology for some application system based on source ontologies
- relatively unstable and evolves autonomously

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

**Notes:**
digestive organ internal medicine

## Example 2: example description

- Source ontologies
- SO1
- Buyer has.Creditrating
- Buyer(Anthony)
- Creditrating(Credit-A)
- has(Anthony, Credit-A)
- Note: This is described in DL
- Local Ontology
- LO1
- Buyer(Tony)
- Creditrating(Credit-A)
- has(Tony, Credit-A)
- hasProblem(Tony, A)
- About(A, Credit-A)
- Note
- The name ‘Anthony’ in SO1 and SO2  is changed to ‘Tony’ in LO1
- A new knowledge  ‘About(A, Credit-A)’ is added.

- SO2
- hasProblem(Anthony, A)
- Email(B)
- Send(Anthony, B, Jerry)
- Note
- This can be understood as in KIF etc. but cannot be in DL nor OWL because ‘Send’ is 3-aray predicate.
- LO2
- Buyer(Anthony)
- Email(B)
- Send(Anthony, B, Jerry)
- About(B, A)
- Note
- A new knowledge  ‘About(B,A)’ is added locally.

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Example2:Without (Valid Variant of ) Source Ontology

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

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

**Notes:**
cartoony  communication cannot be established

## Example2: with (Valid Variant of ) Source Ontology

- 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.

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

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

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

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

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

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

**Notes:**
cartoony  communication cannot be established

## Example2:Object Diagram of MMF Ontology Registration

- SO2

- SO1

- Credit-A

- hasProblem

- A

- Email

- Anthony

- Creditrating

- has

- Buyer

- B

- Jerry

- <Atomic_Onto_Construct>

- <Onto_Component>

- <Source_Ontology>

- Send

- About

- Tony

- Buyer(Tony)

- has(Tony, Credit-A)

- hasProblem(Tony, A)

- Send(Tony, B, Jerry)

- VVSO1

- VVSO2

- LO1

- <VVSource_Ontology>

- <Local_Ontology>

- About(A, Credit-A)

- Buyer has.Creditrating

- Creditrating(Credit-A)

- has(Anthony, Credit-A)

- Send(Anthony, B, Jerry)

- Buyer(Anthony)

- About(B, A)

- hasProblem(Anthony, A)

- Email(B)

- LO2

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Example 3:SUMO

- Source_Ontology
- An administrative information corresponding to SUMO at http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/
- Ontology_Component
- An administrative information 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](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/_human.html)_)))), etc....
- This is in KIF(CL) 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.
- Atomic_Onto_Construct
- An administrative information corresponding to
- 	_[instance](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/instance.html)_, _[agent](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/agent.html)_, _[instrument](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/instrument.html)_, _[instance](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/instance.html)_, ... 	Note: these are binary relations.
- 	_[AnimalLanguage](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/_animal_language.html)_, _[Animal](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/_animal.html)_, _[Human](http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/_human.html)_,...	Note: these are concepts.
- 	Note: ?LANG, ?PROC, ?AGENT are just variables and not individuals.

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Example 4: OWL Wine Ontology (1/2)

- Source_Ontolgy
- An administrative information corresponding to a whole ontology ‘wine.xml’  at http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine
- Ontology_Component
- An administrative information 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...

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Example 4: OWL Wine Ontology (2/2)

- Atomic_Onto_Construct
- An administrative information corresponding to
- WhiteWine,
- Collection,
- Wine,
- hasColor,
- White,
- hasVintageYear,
- FunctionalProperty,
- Vintage,
- VintageYear,  etc...

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

## Relation between  MMF Ontology Registration and Core

- This is a very simplified diagram and may need some refinements.

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

- Thank you.
- Your support would be highly appreciated!

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28

- 

- ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 MMF Ontology Registration

- 2005/01/28