1. SC32/WG2 N 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

2. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 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.)

3. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-18 MMF Ontology Registration project 3 Status Report after Xi’An WG2 meeting resolutions dated 2004-5-28 2 nd 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. 3 rd WD was posted on 2005-4-5 (SC32N1258)

4. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 4 Main refinements from 2 nd WD Simpler metamodel All the metaclasses in the 2 nd WD were re-examined and as a result, the metamodel in the 3 rd 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 2 nd WD, description logic was an underlying language that describes an ontology. In the 3 rd WD, there is no such a language so that it can be applied to a more variety of ontologies.

5. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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 1.distinguish two types of ontologies. Reference Ontology and Local Ontology. 2.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

6. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 6 Outline Objectives Basic idea 1 Basic idea 2 Metamodel Relation to ODM Examples Summary

7. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 7 Objectives

8. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

9. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 9 Basic idea 1 To solve problem1  Each ontology is developed independently and evolves autonomously.

10. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 10 Difficulty caused by independent development and autonomous evolution 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’. Ontology for application system A Ontology for application system B Agent AAgent B Give me a ‘green card’. Green card??? I can give you a Christmas card. Christmas card??? To avoid this difficulty, MMF Ontology Registration provides two types of ontologies, Reference Ontology and Local Ontology.

11. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 11 Reference ontology and local ontology Reference Ontology3 Local Ontology for application system A Local Ontology for application system B Local ontology : localized ontology for some application system based on reference ontologies relatively unstable and evolves autonomously and continuously. Reference Ontology: standardized ontology for some business domain pre-defined and relatively stable Reference Ontology1 Reference Ontology2 ・ ・ ・

12. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 12 With Reference Ontology Green Card is defined in terms of Reference Ontology Christmas card is defined in terms of Reference Ontology. Reference Ontology Local Ontology for application system A Local Ontology for application system B Card is … Certification is … Agent AAgent B Color is … Green is … Give me a green card. What is a green card? Is it a Christmas card whose color is green? No. A green card is a certification of working in the U.S. OK. I understand. Then, I do not have a green card. MMF Ontology Registration provides the registration framework where a local ontology is defined based on reference ontologies

13. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

14. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

15. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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

16. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 16 Common basic structure of ontology A very simplified but common three granularity level structure is; 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 )  Creditrating  Tony Ontology Sentence Symbol

17. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

18. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 18 MMF Ontology Registration structure(2) 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  Creditrating  Tony Ontology +administrative info. Ontology Component +administrative info Ontology Atomic Construct +administrative info MMF Ontology Registration Actual Ontology Ontology Sentence Symbol reference consistOf use reference

19. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 19 View from 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 corresponds to Ontology Component This corresponds to Ontology Atomic Construct individual (or object) symbol non logical symbol

20. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 20 Example ： SUMO Ontology Administrative information etc. corresponding to SUMO at http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/ Ontology Component Administrative information etc. corresponding to (=> (and (instance ?LANG AnimalLanguage) (agent ?PROC ?AGENT) (instrument ?PROC ?LANG)) (and (instance ?AGENT Animal) (not (instance ?AGENT Human)))), etc ….=>andinstanceAnimalLanguageagentinstrumentandinstanceAnimalnotinstanceHuman  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.instanceanimal languageagentinstrumentinstance animalinstancehuman Ontology Atomic Construct Administrative information etc. corresponding to instanceinstance, agent, instrument, … Note: these are binary relations.agentinstrument AnimalLanguageAnimalLanguage, Animal, Human, … Note: these are concepts.AnimalHuman Note: ?LANG, ?PROC, ?AGENT are variables and not individuals.

21. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine Ontology_Component Administrative information etc. corresponding to,, etc…

22. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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…

23. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 23 Metamodel

24. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 24 Core portion of MMF Ontology Registration metamodel Reference Ontology: standardized ontology for some business domain relatively stable Local Ontology : localized ontology for some application system based on Reference Ontologies relatively unstable and evolves autonomously Reference Ontology Reference Ontology Component Reference Ontology Atomic Construct Local Ontology 0:* 0:1 Local Ontology Component Local Ontology Atomic Construct 0:1 0:* sameAs

25. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 25 Whole metamodel of MMF Ontology Registration

26. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 26 Relation to OMG ODM

27. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 27 Scope of MMF Ontology Registration

28. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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

29. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 29 Relation between MMF Ontology Registration and ODM Ontology UML2 Metamodel OWL/RDFS Metamodel SCL Metamodel ER Metamodel TM Metamodel DL Metamode l Ontology described in UML2 Ontology described in OWL/RDFS Ontology described in SCL Ontology described in ER Ontology described in TM Ontology described in DL Ontology Component Atomic_Onto_Construct ODM: Ontology that has a suitable interface MMF Ontology Registration

30. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 30 Example to show how MMF Ontology Registration works

31. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

32. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

33. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 33 Example1: Without Reference 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)  Creditrating(Credit-A)  has(Tony, Credit-A)  hasProblem(Tony, A)  About(A, 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)

34. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 34 Example1: with Reference 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. Agent of MMF Ontology Registration tells agent A that agent B can answer it. MMF Ontology Registration Agent A of the application system based on LO1 Agent B of the application system based on LO2 Referenc e Ontology RO1 Referenc e Ontology RO2  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) Reference OntologyRO1RO2 Local OntologyLO1LO2

35. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 35 Example1: Object Diagram of MMF Ontology Registration

36. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

37. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 37 Thank you for your attention.

38. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 38 Annex More realistic example using ‘OWL Wine’ as a reference ontology.

39. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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

40. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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

41. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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 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 whose name space is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209 /wine 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.

42. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

43. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

44. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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

45. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

46. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

47. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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

48. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

49. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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.

50. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 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) 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

51. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 51 Case4(1) Some liquor shop owner wants to create a local ontology called ‘my-wine4’ 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-wine4’. Third, he changes nasmespace URIs and a base URI to http://www.my-own- PC-server/my-wine4 except xmlns:owl, rdfs, rdf, xsd to be able to maintain everything by himself. Then, he registered ‘my-wine’ as a local ontology in MMF Ontology Registration repository. In this case, none of Reference_Ontology_Components nor Reference_Ontolgy_Atomic_Constructs are re-used.

52. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 52 Case4(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-wine4: Local_Ontology +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc. +URI: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4 +consistOf: all OID of Local_Ontology_Component ‘C0’ – ‘C857’ at next slide C0: Local_Ontology_Component +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc. +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4 +use: OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ and ‘myWine’ at next slide

53. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 53 Case4(3) Local_Ontology_Component (continued) Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct Cxx: Local_Ontology_Component +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc. +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4 +sameAs:OID of Reference_Ontology_Component ‘Cxx’ at http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine +use: OIDs of Local_Ontology_Atomic_Constructs at next silide used in this component Note: xx= 1 - 857 myWine: Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construc +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc. +namespace: http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4

54. SC32/WG2 N 2005-04-20 MMF Ontology Registration project 54 Case4(4) Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct (continued) Wine : Local_Ontology_Atomic_Construct +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc. namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4 same_as: OID of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘Wine’ with namespace: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine etc. PotableLiquid: Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct +administrative information: ‘my-wine4’ authority etc. +namespace:http://www.my-own-PC-server/my-wine4 +sameAs:OID of Reference_Ontology_Atomic_Construct ‘PotableLiquid’ with namespace http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/food etc.