some remarks on VOEvent

[Ed Shaya]

The Poseiden UML tool has been tested with the ontology UML Profile and 
metamodel (for a description see:
http://www.metamodel.com/wisme-2004/present/9.pdf).  Apparently, you can 
not take a standard UML and just transform it to OWL.  One needs to 
incorporate the profile and metamodel first.

Ed


Tony Linde wrote:

>Ooohhh!!  Toys!!  Finally something *I* can understand :)
>
>Now, anyone got an ontology-friendly UML tool?
>
>T. 
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-semantics at eso.org 
>>[mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On Behalf Of Ed Shaya
>>Sent: 06 June 2005 17:06
>>To: semantics at ivoa.net
>>Subject: Re: some remarks on VOEvent
>>
>>And if one wants to autoconvert UML to OWL there is this tool at
>>
>>http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~gasevic/projects/UMLtoOWL/
>>
>>
>>      UMLtoOWL: Converter from UML to OWL
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>      General information
>>
>>The UMLtoOWL tool converts extended Ontology UML Profile 
>>(OUP) models in XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) format to The 
>>Web Ontology Language (OWL) 
>><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210> ontologies. 
>>The tool is implemented by using eXtensible Stylesheet 
>>Language Transformation (XSLT). With UMLtoOWL we do not need 
>>to modify the existing UML tools. A UML tool can export an 
>>XMI document that an XSLT processor (e.g. Xalan Java 2 
>><http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/index.html>) can use as input. 
>>An OWL document is produced as the output, and this format 
>>can be imported into a tool specialized for ontology 
>>development (e.g. Protégé
>><http://protege.stanford.edu/>) where it can be further refined.
>>
>>This work is a part of the Good Old AI 
>><http://goodoldai.org.yu/> research effort to develop an MDA 
>>based ontology infrastructure 
>><http://www.comsis.fon.bg.ac.yu/ComSISpdf/Volume01/Papers/Drag
>>anDjuric.pdf>.
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Bernard Vatant wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>.... to follow-up with my previous message ...
>>>
>>>Roy Williams wrote :
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>More properly we should *not* say VOEvent represents an 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>astrophysical 
>>    
>>
>>>>event, but rather it represents an *observation* of an event. Each 
>>>>observation is assigned an ID.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Agreed, iff "an *observation* of an event" is not taken in a naive 
>>>realistic view of the world, a la ...
>>>
>>>1. There was an event to observe (outthere, independently of 
>>>      
>>>
>>mine, or 
>>    
>>
>>>any other,
>>>observation)
>>>2. I was there, lucky man/woman to catch it : see my data.
>>>
>>>.... but puts the observation first, and then the event 
>>>      
>>>
>>definition, a la :
>>    
>>
>>>1. I happened to capture this pack of data.
>>>2. They seem to make together enough sense, according to 
>>>      
>>>
>>my/our current 
>>    
>>
>>>knowledge - or still better, to our *lack* of knowledge - to 
>>>      
>>>
>>be encapsulated inside an "event box".
>>    
>>
>>>3. My first interpretation is bla bla ...
>>>
>>>Bernard
>>>
>>>*************************************************************
>>>      
>>>
>>**********
>>    
>>
>>>***********
>>>
>>>Bernard Vatant
>>>Senior Consultant
>>>Knowledge Engineering
>>>bernard.vatant at mondeca.com
>>>
>>>"Making Sense of Content" :  http://www.mondeca.com "Everything is a 
>>>Subject" :  http://universimmedia.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>*************************************************************
>>>      
>>>
>>**********
>>    
>>
>>>***********
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>