|[ATL] Transformation to OWL2 functional-style syntax: is owl2.ecore proper for this task? [message #823619]
||Sun, 18 March 2012 16:14
| Jaroslav K.
Registered: March 2012
Hello, dear team,|
I'm interesting in SBVR to OWL (especially - OWL2) transformation and have made a simple ATL transformation, which is able to transform some basic SBVR concepts (in XMI format) to the OWL (in XMI format, which next is converted to the OWL file).
For this transformation I used:
- sbvr.ecore (OMG suggested).
- owl.ecore: from UML2OWL example  to get owl_1.xmi, which can be transformed to the owl_1.owl (similar as in the mentioned UML2OWL example).
The questions are:
- W3C suggested owl2.ecore ("official" OWL2 metamodel ) is completely different. For a newbie the owl2.ecore looks very "thin": there are no class names, no other attributes.
- OWL2 has several syntaxes (Manchester, OWL/XML, Functional, ...). Which OWL2 metamodel should I use to transform SBVR to the OWL2 functional-style (Functional) syntax? Maybe I try to use ATL not for what it is suit best or use not the right metamodel?
Don't understand incorrectly: there is no need to obtain result (OWL2) in functional-style syntax. The aim is to get OWL2. After that I can use a great work (OWL Syntax Converter ) of the team from University of Manchester (API/WebService) to convert to the syntax I (or someone else) will need.
Thank you very much for your time and answers.
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01921 seconds