Manufacturing Ontologies

[Michael DeBellis]

I'm looking for any ontologies in the manufacturing domain. Especially things that describe parts, machines, bill of materials, design of factory floors, workflow, etc. I've done some searching but to my surprise haven't found anything yet.  Especially interested if there are any standard or defacto standard ontologies. Also, if are there any other widely adopted manufacturing standard data or message models? E.g., thing like HL7 which standardizes messages in hospital and healthcare domains. 

[Joao Paulo Almeida]

Dear Michael,

Check out Marcela Vegetti's work, especially concerning with bill of materials:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=jjTgQYAAAAAJ&hl=en

Regards,

João Paulo

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 at 15:37 Michael DeBellis <mdebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm looking for any ontologies in the manufacturing domain. Especially things that describe parts, machines, bill of materials, design of factory floors, workflow, etc. I've done some searching but to my surprise haven't found anything yet.  Especially interested if there are any standard or defacto standard ontologies. Also, if are there any other widely adopted manufacturing standard data or message models? E.g., thing like HL7 which standardizes messages in hospital and healthcare domains. 

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Um abraço,
João Paulo

[Alex Shkotin]

Hi Michael,

have a look at ISO 15926. It may be interesting.

Alex

2017-03-10 21:37 GMT+03:00 Michael DeBellis <mdebe...@gmail.com>:

I'm looking for any ontologies in the manufacturing domain. Especially things that describe parts, machines, bill of materials, design of factory floors, workflow, etc. I've done some searching but to my surprise haven't found anything yet.  Especially interested if there are any standard or defacto standard ontologies. Also, if are there any other widely adopted manufacturing standard data or message models? E.g., thing like HL7 which standardizes messages in hospital and healthcare domains. 

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Alexander]

Hi Michael, 

Or have a look at ‘Developing High Quality Data Models’ by Matthew West.

Kind regards,

Alex

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Barry Smith]

There is a sample of material here:

http://ncorwiki.buffalo.edu/index.php/Main_Page#Ontology_of_Engineering

Would be grateful for further contributions.

BS

[Jack Hodges]

Please post the base uri for the ontology so we can review and compare against other engineering and physics ontologies. The web page doesn't seem to point to ontologies. Thank you.

Jack Hodges

Siemens

Sent from my iPad

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Barry Smith]

Unfortunately very few of the ontologies described in these papers are publicly available

BS

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Jack Hodges <jhodg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please post the base uri for the ontology so we can review and compare against other engineering and physics ontologies. The web page doesn't seem to point to ontologies. Thank you.

Jack Hodges

Siemens

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 11, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Barry Smith <phis...@buffalo.edu> wrote:

[Jack Hodges]

That I understand completely and I meant no offense in asking the question. Our engineering physics ontologies also have that constraint. These provisos and laments thus shared and understood, how are we to answer the poster's question: "are there engineering or manufacturing ontologies" when we know that they exist? We can point to 15926 or countless other engineering-related ontologies, but they are modeling 'above' (perhaps not concerned with) the level of physics and functionality.

Jack

Jack

[Edward Barkmeyer]

Michael,

 

Analogous to the HL7 data models for healthcare information, there are several suites of information models for manufacturing that are standardized by ISO.  

 

There are dozens of Parts of ISO 10303 Standards for the Exchange of Product Data (STEP), including one massive specification for Automotive and Aircraft Engineering ISO 10303-242.  See: https://www.iso.org/standard/57620.html.  The page provides a list of the major topics covered by the specification.  Unfortunately, ISO’s operating revenue depends on the sale of its standards,  and the HTML version of Part 242 is currently c200 Swiss francs.

 

There is a similar massive suite for electronics design and manufacture:  ISO 10303-210, but that may be somewhat out of date, in that electronics manufacture changes rapidly.  Moreover, unlike Part 242, it is not widely used.

 

ISO 15926 (mentioned before) was intended for the design of (petro)chemical plants, but has grown a wider audience. Part 2 is an upper ontology, and it is to be used as a formal basis for the application Resource Description Libraries (or something like that), of which at least two have been developed by industry bodies, but I don’t know how accessible those are.  The nominally ISO standard RDL is Part 4, if there is a current version.  Part 11, for systems engineering per ISO 15288 (often required for EU construction projects), and Part 12, plant life cycle information (still in balloted draft form), are actually in use.

 

There is a workflow/process information model with a formal interpretation published by OMG as the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) specification:  http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN.  It is widely used, and supported by 40+ software tools.  OMG specifications are freely available on the Web.

 

You may also find the “UML Profile for DoDAF/MoDAF” interesting: http://www.omg.org/spec/UPDM. It was born of multiple NATO process and information modeling specifications (called “architecture frameworks”) aimed at capturing engineering information for joint weapons systems.  The US DoD and UK MoD published the original specs for their industry partners, and those specs have been known to be available on the Web, but the URLs change.  The UML profile captures the principal framework elements by “stereotyping” UML and BPMN elements, but the spec at least sketches each of the concepts being represented. 

 

As Jack Hodges observed, useful industrial ontologies are deemed to be valuable intellectual property by the companies and industry groups that develop them, and they are typically available only to partners and group members.  Even the ISO 10303-242 specification was jointly developed by two such groups, and group members have access to related tutorials and tools that are not publicly available.

 

-Ed

 

Ed Barkmeyer

ebark...@thematix.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017-03-10 21:37 GMT+03:00 Michael DeBellis <mdebe...@gmail.com>:

I'm looking for any ontologies in the manufacturing domain. Especially things that describe parts, machines, bill of materials, design of factory floors, workflow, etc. I've done some searching but to my surprise haven't found anything yet.  Especially interested if there are any standard or defacto standard ontologies. Also, if are there any other widely adopted manufacturing standard data or message models? E.g., thing like HL7 which standardizes messages in hospital and healthcare domains. 

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael DeBellis]

This is great feedback. I was a bit busy the last few days with other work so just getting back now. Thanks very much to everyone for all the great info. 

Michael

[joseph simpson]

Are there any detailed open source  ontologies in the manufacturing domain that are available for use by everyone?

Joe

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Michael DeBellis <mdebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is great feedback. I was a bit busy the last few days with other work so just getting back now. Thanks very much to everyone for all the great info. 

Michael

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

[Zahid Usman]

@Michal DeBellis:

I developed a manufacturing reference ontology in my PhD and I continue to work on manufacturing ontologies. My paper can be found here

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207543.2013.801570

regarding BOM, Imran's thesis and paper should be good references. 

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/13995/4/Thesis-2013-Imran.pdf

These works incorporate and try overcome the limitations of standards.However, these ontologies are coded in Knowledge Frame Language and not OWL. I can share my ontology code if you require.

I will also be interested in having more detailed discussions and exploring collaborations if you plan to work on manufacturing ontologies, You may also wish to speak to Prof Bob Young from Lougborough University and Stefano Borgo from Italy's national research council.

Regards

Zahid

Lecturer, Coventry University

[McDaniel, Melinda H]

Thanks Zahid. Can you post a link to the actual ontology as well? I am doing research on ontology quality assessment and need some domain ontology to study.

Melinda

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Melinda McDaniel
College of Computing
Georgia Institute of Technology
801 Atlantic Drive, Room 135
Atlanta, GA 30332-0280

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Emilio Sanfilippo]

Dear Michael,

To the best of my knowledge, the manufacturing community currently lacks "stable" ontologies for knowledge management. There are disparate, disconnected research efforts and works, like the ones previously mentioned by Smith, Almeida, Usman, etc. A lot of work has been done also by Walter Terkaj's research group at the ITIA-CNR (Milan, Italy).
I myself wrote a Ph.D. thesis (with Stefano Borgo and Nicola Guarino) about the ontological representation of features of product modelling, and I'm currently looking for a research position (post-doc or similar) to put forward my studies.
If you wish, I can send you the thesis.

What kinds of application do you have in mind for ontologies in manufacturing?

Best,
Emilio  

[Jack Hodges]

The manufacturing sector has many (times many) standards that define processes and artifacts from various regulatory points of view. Some of these have OWL implementations, while others can be adapted to OWL from XML Schema, UML, and other structured formats. If integrated, they could form a 'ring' or 'composite' model of part of the world. They do not cover the 'lower' level object and physics causal models that glue objects, object behavior, object function, and object use into the ring. This is also my area of specialty. There have been several efforts to build skill/capability models (in OWL) on the fringe of standards such as ISA 88/95 that would allow for more autonomy and collaboration between devices. Below the physics model 'level' there have been several ontologies developed at the quantities, units, and dimensions 'level' (e.g., QUDT, QUDV, Sweet, UCUM). Ultimately it would be helpful to have integrated ontologies that span the causal path from properties through manufacturing. It is this middle area (physics) that is missing. My own work was in engineering mechanics, but that was a qualitative rather than quantitative ontology supporting notions of problem solving and creativity (I.e., functional equivalence). Although the concepts of physics span physical domains, other ontologies must be developed for the other engineering g disciplines (e.g., electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, etc.) and cross-discipline (e.g., electro-mechanical, etc.). Do they exist? I'd also like to know. Given that physics is well known to all, and has been studied by many in AI over the years (present company included), it is amazing that so few ontologies exist, let alone standards. SSN/SOSA is a good glue point for physics ontologies because it provides an IO model for device, albeit in the form of sensors and actuators.

Jack

Sent from my iPad

--

[Marcel Fröhlich]

Hi Jack,

could you please reference (URLs or names) some of those standards that have OWL implementations?

Thanks,

Marcel

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Hodges]

Marcel,

Some of them were referenced in another poster's response. I have an 'ontology of ontologies' and am copying a few of them here as a starting point for further discussion. I think that the international community of ontologists would benefit greatly by having an ontology registry of all known ontologies, most especially standards implementations, with appropriate provenance, so that we do not have to each keep going through this exercise ad infinitum. I do not consider Schema.org as a registry of ontologies in this way since they provide no base URIs nor any notion of vetting.

The following may not be the correct Base URIs or even the correct versions. Please feel free to edit and augment. Also, these are just 4 of the properties from my Ontologies ontology:

ont:modelStandard ISO 62264
ont:modelName B2MML, associated with ISA 95)
ont:modelBaseURI http://www.mesa.org/xml/B2MML-V0600
ont:modelTypeConverted false

ont:modelStandard ASHRAE 135-2012
ont:modelName  BACnet
ont:modelBaseURI http://bacowl.sourceforge.net/2012/bacnet
ont:modelTypeConverted true

ont:modelStandard ISO 16739
ont:modelName IFC
ont:modelBaseURI http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/ifcOWL/IFC4
ont:modelTypeConverted true

ont:modelName ISA-8895
ont:modelBaseURI http://www.controlchainmanagement.org/Lean8895
ont:modelTypeConverted true

ont:modelStandard ISO 15926
ont:modelBaseURI http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/02/OWL/ISO-15926-2_2003
ont:modelTypeConverted false

ont:modelName LDAP
ont:modelBaseURI http://purl.org/net/ldap
ont:modelTypeConverted true

ont:modelStandard IEC 62541-5
ont:modelName OPC UA
ont:modelBaseURI https://opcfoundation.org/UA/schemas/1.02/
ont:modelTypeConverted true

ont:modelName OpenADR
ont:modelBaseURI http://openadr.org/oadr-2.0a/2012/07
ont:modelTypeConverted true

ont:modelStandard IEC 61131-3
ont:modelName PLCOpen
ont:modelBaseURI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLCopen
ont:modelTypeConverted true

ont:modelName PROV-O
ont:modelBaseURI http://www.w3.org/ns/prov
ont:modelTypeConverted false

ont:modelName PSL
ont:modelBaseURI http://www.linkedmodel.org/PSL/psl_core
ont:modelTypeConverted false

ont:modelName QUDT
ont:modelBaseURI http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt
ont:modelTypeConverted false

ont:modelName SAREF
ont:modelBaseURI https://w3id.org/saref
ont:modelTypeConverted false

ont:modelName SOCoP
ont:modelBaseURI http://ontohub.org/socop/BFO
ont:modelTypeConverted false

ont:modelName SSN
ont:modelBaseURI http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/
ont:modelTypeConverted false

ont:modelName XACML
ont:modelBaseURI http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/
ont:modelTypeConverted true

Jack

Jack

[Edward Barkmeyer]

I guess we need to decide what all is intended by “manufacturing”.  As the ISA folks have described the domain, there are five levels of concern for manufacturing systems.  At the bottom you have direct physical control at the sensor/actuator level.  In the next two layers up, you have the kind of aggregated control that is typical of machine-tool controllers, conveyor systems, robots, and process/assembly line controllers, dispatchers, etc.  ISA 95 is aimed primarily at the relationships between that level of control and factory operations management at the level of job scheduling and production monitoring and control, materials management, and sometimes maintenance scheduling, what used to be called MRP I.  Finally, the top level is about manufacturing planning, capacity planning,  resource planning, materials supply, finished product warehousing, shipment, etc. – general operations management – or MRP II.   Modern ERP systems generally provide the capabilities for handling all of the two upper level functions, which is why the ISA 95 spec aims at the place where the ERP system communicates with actual factory floor operations. 

 

In most manufacturing organizations, there is a parallel engineering organization that identifies product requirements, designs products, and designs manufacturing processes and plants to make those products.  And these activities all interact with the manufacturing operations activities at the several levels in various ways, and occasionally fail to interact in ways they should have.

 

Finally, because much of manufacturing is assembly of pre-made parts, and manufacturing plants, power generation facilities, ships, and buildings in general behave like big assemblies, there are many standard taxonomies for products and components, some of which provide enough formal characteristics to make useful ontologies.

 

There are many hundreds of standardized terminologies and information models, and perhaps 50 standards organizations, for this broad spectrum of concerns.  And it is important to realize that most of these specifications are regularly cited in some process and engineering specifications, and/or in contracts and regulations.  So we should probably ask Michael and other interested parties what aspect of “manufacturing” they are most interested in.

 

Jack’s collection of standards, with a few exceptions, is primarily about control system concerns at the lower two or three levels.  And in particular, the IFC and BACNet specifications come from the construction industry and are largely agnostic with respect the nature and purpose of the building.  Similarly, OPC and ISA 88 are primarily about dealing with controllers at the lowest two levels, which is common in process plants and some assembly line controls.  OPC/UA is intended for level 3 and upwards. 

 

That said, Jack’s list is still valuable.  Thanks, Jack.  I have passed this list on to some professional colleagues who have an interest in these.

 

-Ed

 

P.S.  For about 35 years, the NIST Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory with research in measurements and technologies, and standards for information reporting and exchange, across the spectrum above, but in individual projects of interest to some industries.   And that is what I did for those 35 years.  We discovered and used information modeling in 1984 and ontologies in the late 1990s.  

 

P.P.S.  IMO, the number of manufacturing applications that can effectively use ontologies for automated reasoning is a small fraction of those that can effectively use ontologies for capturing concept systems for other purposes.

One of the useful reasoning applications is in the area of interpretation of sensory data into a conceptual model of the state of the world as it relates to the process at hand.  And that is where many of the ontologies that Jack lists could be useful.

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

Jack

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Marcel Fröhlich]

Jack,

thanks for the long list. I was aware of many of those (esp. the more generic stuff), still a lot of specific ontologies/schemas that I did not know. Note that many links do not dereference any more, which is just another argument for a shared registry.

The one that seems to be in decent shape is LOV http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/ - at least from a linked data perspective.

No registry can prevent that ontologies stop being maintained, which is a serious issue for reuse. 

A lot of standards oriented schemas are still in XML/XSD, often not even on the web, but buried e.g. in a zip file.

From many perspectives like ownership, maintenance, URI minting of names, mapping to RDFS/OWL still a big mess to get from XML schema definition files to a reusable ontology shared across multiple consumers.

I wonder how this could be tackled. 

At least maintenance is usually not the issue with relevant standards.

What could be an incentive for standards bodies to go last mile from XSD to RDFS/OWL?

Best, Marcel

[Edward Barkmeyer]

Marcel,

 

You wrote:

> What could be an incentive for standards bodies to go last mile from XSD to RDFS/OWL?

 

For those groups that actually constructed some kind of conceptual information model (UML, EXPRESS, etc.), that translation can be automated with reasonable fidelity.  They started out with class and property notions.  But for those who were solely concerned with the data organization in XML, it is a different matter.  Their fundamental notions are container and labeled datum.  The way of thinking that begot many XML schemas makes OWL a foreign concept system.  You can do a rote translation of any given exchange file to RDF, but you can’t really translate “containers” to classes and properties.  So that last mile is an Alpine climb for them.

 

-Ed

 

 

 

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcel Fröhlich
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:47 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Manufacturing Ontologies

 

Jack,

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

Jack

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Hodges]

I am not sure that I can agree with Ed's comments. Yes, if OWL alone is used, no question, since its only real container is rdf:List. But if you go one step further, to for example use QUDT, which has a collection (please excuse the unintentional pun) of data types, including data structures of various kinds, then you can use those structures for containers.

That said, there are all kinds of issues that make a simple conversion of XML Schema to RDF problematic. So if I say that a conversion was done from XML Schema to OWL, then there are several layers involved. One is the simple conversion mentioned. Then you have to mitigate the difference that RDFS gives you inheritance and instantiation so you have to deal with the type/instance differences. Then you have to handle any property/attribute issues. Then you have to address logical constraints such as disjoint classes. Ultimately you have to compare your new ontology against the specification itself...but by then you would have a pretty solid model. It is likely that different ontologists, who have different views of ontology design best practices, would implement these conversions differently.

Jack

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

Jack

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Jack

[Marcel Fröhlich]

Jack,

that was my very point when I said "mapping". 

It is not my idea that there should be an automated mapping from XSD to RDFS/OWL.

That leads to at best mediocre results and it implies "no value added".

The ontology needs to be created in an additional exercise, but it is absolutely viable

to create ontologies that model entities that map easily to the elements of the XSD.

I see typically little need to simulate order of an XML when moving to a graph representation.

From a conceptual perspective order is not as often needed as XML suggests.

So a alternative to an XML file could often be simply an RDF data graph.

Marcel

[Jack Hodges]

@Ed,

I was just dumping representative model instances from my ontology of ontologies. It is true that some of the ones I included were/are not industrial and my apologies for the lack of conscientiousness for which models I put into the post. If interested, attached is the Ontology class itself, sans instances. I only created it for myself, so that I wouldn't have to keep re-finding ontologies and, as pointed out, I haven't maintained the base URIs for these models, and I can imagine more properties than this model currently has. Note that I have several properties relating to the local implementation (e.g., location in local file system, local name).

Jack

Jack

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

Jack

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Jack

[Matthew Lange]

I would be very happy to hear from folks who would like to collaborate on ontologies for manufacturing foods.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew Lange, PhD Research Food and Health Informatician Principal Investigator, IC3-FOODS Associate Director, Initiative for Wireless Health & Wellness UC Davis and UC Davis Health System mcl...@ucdavis.edu

[Jack Hodges]

You would want standards for the process industry right?

Sent from my iPad

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Matthew Lange]

For the sake of continuity with last comment, and apologies for brief thread hijack--but we have a consortium building ontologies about food in all of its facets...manufacturing (food processing) being one of those that exists along the environment<>ag<>food (processing)<>diet<>health knowledge spectrum. I am always on the lookout for more...as well as for currently existing data/domain standards that are low hanging fruit, ripe for "ontologization". Delighted to fork into another thread if there is interest in this group.

~mc

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew Lange, PhD Research Food and Health Informatician Principal Investigator, IC3-FOODS Associate Director, Initiative for Wireless Health & Wellness UC Davis and UC Davis Health System

[Michael DeBellis]

I want to thank everyone for the incredible response. I was traveling and sick since I posted my original question so haven't had a lot of time to go through all the responses in detail but what I've found already as a result was just incredibly helpful. There are some posts I plan to reply to directly a little later, I want to do some more research first. But one question I do have is about MSDL. This looks like it might have a lot of promise but I couldn't find the ontology download. I found something that looks like its from a for profit company so perhaps MSDL is a proprietary ontology? Anyone know what is the current status of MSDL and is there an OWL download available somewhere?

Michael