From: Joachim Van der Auwera <joachim@pr...> - 2008-05-13 10:57:57
> Joachim what are your thoughts on OWL export of the object model? Where
> would that be used?
The main use for me is for documentation purposes. It is very practical
to take the owl model, import that into protégé and use the Jambalaya
plugin to create a graphical representation of the entities and the
links between them.
While I had hoped this would also be possible by experting the model in
UML (using the xmi format), it seems this does not allow storing a
graphical representation (at least not in the tools I looked at).
> I have to admit I am interested in something else, but have made no
> progress, that of the possible use of Tapestry with OWL. Henry Story has the
> story (excuse the pun). https://sommer.dev.java.net/sommer.html
> It seems to me that if you have implemented the export of the object model
> into OWL that is a step away from consuming OWL within Tapestry perhaps by
> creating a pipeline?
To a large extent, you could also do the reverse mapping, converting owl
into a equanda domain model and this can then be used to build the
persistence layer and user interface. The difference being that owl is
more generic in (data) modelling capabilities but the domain model has
specific features to add annotations about constraints and hints for the
> Might this have some benefit? Henry Story discuses ActiveRDF extension to
> Ruby where using RDF seems as natural as importing a package. I think it
> would have benefits. Display data according to inferred type and so on.
> What do you think?
In the equanda context, you have to keep in mind that it uses code
generation, and thus a compilation step is necessary to move from model
(be it owl or equanda's own representation) to a running program. At
first guess this seems to be a constraint.
Apart from that, I think I need a better understanding of what you want
to achieve to give proper feedback.
Joachim Van der Auwera
PROGS bvba, progs.be