3 ms·
These mappings is exactly what I'm talking about. I advised the OMG on one of the mappings in the ODM and I don't think they understood what they were mapping.
by larsga 8y ago
These mappings is exactly what I'm talking about. I advised the OMG on one of the mappings in the ODM and I don't think they understood what they were mapping. To model OWL with UML gives you very little. To then map Topic Maps into the same level as OWL is ... just misguided.
Semantics means something very different to the OMG from what it does to the RDF/OWL community. That's the root of the problem. To the RDF/OWL folks it means "mathematically based logical inference of new statements", whereas to the OMG it seems to mean "human-readable text".
Yes, you can map a property graph into RDF, but to make it work well you usually have to add a lot of information that's not in the original data.
Thanks, I know how RDF and SPARQL work.
- PaulHoule 8y agoUML is not the only standard pushed by the OMG. CORBA and related standards have well-defined semantics. So does BPML. Human-readable definitions are important. One thing I see missing in both the OMG and W3C worlds is a realistic approach to model visualization. For instance if you try to draw a large OWL ontology or a large UML diagram you might need to blow it up to a full wall just to see everything, never mind understand it. Really you need to be able to paint on graphical elements to a graph to show what nodes and relationships are relevant to a particular situation or use case. Many people don't understand OWL because it doesn't actually "make sense". That is, without mechanisms for data validation, you don't know that inference is going to proceed in a correct way, rather you get a "garbage in garbage out" situation where you get new bad facts. Given that the official explanation doesn't make sense, it is natural that people fall back on something they understand.