1 / 54

ISO/IEC WD 19763-3 MMF Ontology Registration

ISO/IEC WD 19763-3 MMF Ontology Registration. He Keqing and OKABE, Masao Project editor MMF Ontology Registration ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32 WG2 Berlin Meeting 2005/04/18, 20. About this document.

kamal
Télécharger la présentation

ISO/IEC WD 19763-3 MMF Ontology Registration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ISO/IEC WD 19763-3MMF Ontology Registration He Keqing and OKABE, Masao Project editor MMF Ontology Registration ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32/WG2 ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32 WG2 Berlin Meeting 2005/04/18, 20

  2. About this document • All the materials in this documents are 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.) MMF Ontology Registration project

  3. Status Report after Xi’An WG2 meeting resolutions dated 2004-5-28 • 2nd WD was posted on 2004-10-25 (SC32 N1177) • Resolutions from Washington WG2 interim meeting in November, 2005 (SC32 N1225, WG2N0709) • Resolution WG 02 / 4: 19763-3 editorship To change the Editors of 19763-3 to be: HE, Keqing & OKABE, Masao. • Resolution WG 02 / 5: 19763-3 title To change the title of 19763-3 from "Metamodel for ontologies" to "Metamodel for ontology registration“ These resolutions will be adopted by SC32 at this SC32 closing plenary. • 3rd WD was posted on 2005-4-5 (SC32N1258) MMF Ontology Registration project

  4. Main refinements from 2nd WD • Simpler metamodel • All the metaclasses in the 2nd WD were re-examined and as a result, the metamodel in the 3rd WD becomes simpler. • It consists of , mainly, • Reference_Ontology, Reference_Ontology_Component, Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct, • Local_Ontology, Local_Ontology_Component, Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct, and • Ontology_Language • No underling ontology description language • In the 2nd WD, description logic was an underlying language that describes an ontology. • In the 3rd WD, there is no such a language so that it can be applied to a more variety of ontologies. MMF Ontology Registration project

  5. Basic Policy and Idea • 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. • have only a very simple structure so that it can be applied to a variety of ontologies, almost independent of ontology description language. • Ontology – Ontology Component – Ontology Atomic Construct MMF Ontology Registration project

  6. Outline • Objectives • Basic idea 1 • Basic idea 2 • Metamodel • Relation to ODM • Examples • Summary MMF Ontology Registration project

  7. Objectives MMF Ontology Registration project

  8. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  9. Basic idea 1 • To solve problem1 • Each ontology is developed independently and evolves autonomously. MMF Ontology Registration project

  10. Agent A Agent B Ontology for application system A Ontology for application system B Give me a ‘green card’. Green card??? I can give you a Christmas card. Christmas card??? Difficulty caused by independent development and autonomous evolution • To avoid this difficulty, MMF Ontology Registration provides two types of ontologies, Reference Ontology and Local Ontology. 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’. MMF Ontology Registration project

  11. ・ ・ ・ Reference ontology and local ontology • Reference Ontology: • standardized ontology for some business domain • pre-defined and relatively stable Reference Ontology3 Reference Ontology1 Reference Ontology2 Local Ontology for application system B Local Ontology for application system A • Local ontology : • localized ontology for some application system based on reference ontologies • relatively unstable and evolves autonomously and continuously. MMF Ontology Registration project

  12. Card is … Certification is … Color is … Green is … Reference Ontology Agent A Agent B Local Ontology for application system A Local Ontology for application system B Give me a green card. What is a green card? Is it a Christmas card whose color is green? Christmas card is defined in terms of Reference Ontology. Green Card is defined in terms of Reference Ontology No. A green card is a certification of working in the U.S. OK. I understand. Then, I do not have a green card. With Reference Ontology • MMF Ontology Registration provides the registration framework where a local ontology is defined based on reference ontologies MMF Ontology Registration project

  13. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  14. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  15. The reality is,… • 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. • OWL has much popularity • Some W3C person said , “ In the near future, all ontologies will be translated into OWL.” • But, the reality is; • There are not many ontolgies described in CL. • There are several described in traditional KIF. • 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. • Looser harmonization is necessary MMF Ontology Registration project

  16. An ontology consists of sentences. e.g. Example_Ontology consists of • Buyerhas.Creditrating(Tony) • Buyer(Tony) • Creditrating(Credit-A) • A sentence consists of symbols. e.g. Buyerhas.Creditrating(Tony) consists of • Buyer • has • logical symbols  ,  ,  (and variables ) Ontology Sentence • Creditrating • Tony Symbol Common basic structure of ontology • A very simplified but common three granularity level structure is; MMF Ontology Registration project

  17. 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 19763-3 MDR , such as registration authority, creation date etc. MMF Ontology Registration project

  18. MMF Ontology Registration Actual Ontology • e.g. Administrative information etc. corresponding to • Example_Ontology • e.g. Administrative information etc. corresponding to each of • Buyerhas.Creditrating(Tony) • Buyer(Tony) • Creditrating(Credit-A) • e.g. Administrative information etc. corresponding to of each • Buyer • has Ontology +administrative info. Ontology reference consistOf Ontology Component +administrative info Sentence reference use Ontology Atomic Construct +administrative info Symbol reference • Creditrating • Tony MMF Ontology Registration structure(2) MMF Ontology Registration project

  19. View from of ontology description languages • Almost any FOLs have these hierarchies. This corresponds to Ontology Component expression symbol term sentence (in a broad sense) Atomic term composite term sentence (or clause) (in a narrow sense) definition logical symbol (in a broad sense) This corresponds to Ontology Atomic Construct non logical symbol variable predicate individual (or object) logical symbol (in a narrow sense) unary predicate (or concept) N-nary predicate (or role, relation) sentence letter (o-ary predicate) MMF Ontology Registration project

  20. Example ：SUMO • Ontology • Administrative information etc. corresponding to SUMO at http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/ • Ontology Component • Administrative information etc. corresponding to (=> (and (instance?LANGAnimalLanguage) (agent?PROC?AGENT) (instrument?PROC?LANG)) (and (instance?AGENTAnimal) (not (instance?AGENTHuman)))), 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  21. Example : OWL Wine Ontology (1/2) • 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… MMF Ontology Registration project

  22. Example : OWL Wine Ontology (2/2) • Ontology Atomic Construct • Administrative information etc. corresponding to • WhiteWine, • Collection, • Wine, • hasColor, • White, • hasVintageYear, • FunctionalProperty, • Vintage, • VintageYear, etc… MMF Ontology Registration project

  23. Metamodel MMF Ontology Registration project

  24. Reference Ontology Local Ontology sameAs Reference Ontology Component Local Ontology Component 0:1 0:* sameAs Reference Ontology Atomic Construct Local Ontology Atomic Construct 0:* 0:1 Core portion of MMF Ontology Registration metamodel • Local Ontology : • localized ontology for some application system based on Reference Ontologies • relatively unstable and evolves autonomously • Reference Ontology: • standardized ontology for some business domain • relatively stable MMF Ontology Registration project

  25. Whole metamodel of MMF Ontology Registration MMF Ontology Registration project

  26. Relation to OMG ODM MMF Ontology Registration project

  27. Scope of MMF Ontology Registration MMF Ontology Registration project

  28. 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 specifications under development by OMG • 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 MMF Ontology Registration project

  29. Ontology described in UML2 Ontology that has a suitable interface Ontology described in TM Ontology described in ER Ontology described in SCL Ontology described in DL Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM MMF Ontology Registration Ontology Ontology Component Atomic_Onto_Construct ER Metamodel SCL Metamodel UML2 Metamodel OWL/RDFS Metamodel TM Metamodel DL Metamodel ODM: Ontology described in OWL/RDFS MMF Ontology Registration project

  30. Example • to show how MMF Ontology Registration works MMF Ontology Registration project

  31. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  32. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  33. Example1:Without Reference Ontology • What is the worse, it is difficult for agent A to find agent B who has the answer. 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? Local Ontology LO1 Local Ontology LO2 Tony??? I do not know Tony. • 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) MMF Ontology Registration project

  34. Example1: with Reference Ontology Reference Ontology RO1 Reference Ontology RO2 MMF Ontology Registration 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 Tell me to whom Tony sent an e-mail? Local Ontology LO1 Local Ontology LO2 • Buyer(Tony) • Creditrating(Credit-A) • has(Tony, Credit-A) • hasProblem(Tony, A) • About(A, Credit-A) Hmm.. Tony is Anthony. So, the answer is to Jerry. • (Buyer Anthony) • (Email B) • (Send Anthony B Jerry) • (About B A) MMF Ontology Registration project

  35. <Ontology_Component> <Ontology_Atomic_Construct> <Ontology> Buyerhas.Creditrating Creditrating RO1 Buyer(Anthony) Buyer sameAs Anthony Buyer(Tony) RO2 Tony (Buyer Anthony) sameAs Credit-A Creditrating(Credit-A) LO1 has(Anthony, Credit-A) has sameAs has(Tony, Credit-A) About LO2 hasProblem (hasProblem Anthony A) sameAs A hasProblem(Tony, A) Legend: Email (Email B) Reference_ B (Send Anthony B Jerry) Local_ for LO1 About(A, Credit-A) Send Local_ for LO2 Jerry (About B A) Example1:Object Diagramof MMF Ontology Registration MMF Ontology Registration project

  36. 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 ODM. MMF Ontology Registration project

  37. Thank you for your attention. MMF Ontology Registration project

  38. Annex • More realistic example using ‘OWL Wine’ as a reference ontology. MMF Ontology Registration project

  39. 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 MMF Ontology Registration project

  40. 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 MMF Ontology Registration project

  41. 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 etc. All symbols whose name space is 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 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  42. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  43. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  44. 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 MMF Ontology Registration project

  45. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  46. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  47. 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 MMF Ontology Registration project

  48. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  49. 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. MMF Ontology Registration project

  50. 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 MMF Ontology Registration project

More Related