MFI Ontology registration Ed2 ~Toward ontology evolution management ~
OKABE, Masao
Co-editor
ISO/IEC 19763-3 MFI Ontology registration project
2007.12.07
目的外使用・複製禁止 2
Outline
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration ED2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 3
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
ISO/IEC 19763-3 MFI Ontology registration Ed1is a part of the Metamodel Framework Interoperability standards,
andwas published as a IS on March 1st, 2007.
Metamodel Framework Interoperability projectis multi-part project intending to promote interoperability of
metamodels, models and ontologies etc. Part 1 Reference model IS Part 2 Core model FCD Part 3 Metamodel for ontology registration IS, WD of Ed2 in preparation Part 4 Metamodel for model mapping CD Part 5 Metamodel for process models registration WD in preparation Part 6 Registration procedure Study Period
Participating Counties: Canada, China, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.Main contributors: China, Japan, Korea
42007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
Features of MFI Ontology registration
FeaturesVery simple specifications as a first step
Think big, act samll!
Simple and generic structure, irrelevant to languages–Ontology_Whole - Ontology_Component - Ontology_Atomic_Construct
Providing a framework to ensure trustiness Reference Ontology vs. Local Ontology
Using a MFI Ontology registration registry, we can at least know what ontologies are there and whether they are trusty or not and get a clue to reuse them.
Since it is very simple and generic, MFI Ontology registration only has a little semantics of ontologies, and for their full semantics, it relies on repositories such as OMG ODM.
52007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 6
Simple and generic structure (1 of 4):Common basic structure of ontologyAlmost any ontology has this simple three granularity structure.
An ontology consists of sentences.
e.g. Example_Ontology consists of Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony) Buyer(Tony) Creditrating(Credit-A)
A sentence uses symbols.e.g. Buyer has.Creditrating(Tony) uses Buyer has logical symbols , , (and variables )
Creditrating Tony
Ontology
Sentence
Symbol
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 7
Simple and generic structure (2 of 3):MFI Ontology registration structure
MFI Ontology registration consists of
Ontology Whole, Ontology Component, Ontology Atomic Construct
that correspond to ontology, sentence, symbol * respectively
and that haveadministrative information ** of its correspondentstructural information of this levela reference(URI) to its correspondent,
for further semantics, if necessary
Note* : Logical symbols such as , , and variables are ignored.
**: inherited from Administered Item of ISO/IEC 11179-3 MDR ,
such as registration authority, creation date etc.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 8
Simple and generic structure (3 of 3):MFI Ontology registration structure
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 Whole +administrative info.
Ontology Component +administrative info
Ontology Atomic Construct +administrative info
MFI Ontology registrationActual ontology
Ontology
Sentence
Symbol
reference
consistOf
use
reference
reference
For actual ontologies, MFI Ontology registration mainly relies on OMG ODM
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 9
Providing a framework to ensure trustinessReference Ontology vs. Local Ontology
Reference OntologyStandardized ontology
that is usable and sharable by a community of interestTrustworthy to others
A reference ontology consists of sentences only in reference ontologies.A sentence in a reference ontology uses symbols only in reference ontologies.
Local OntologyLocalized ontology
for some applications based on Reference Ontologies It is its user’s responsibility to trust this ontology or not.
A local ontology consists of sentences both in this local ontology and other reference ontologies.
A sentence in a local ontology uses a symbols in this local ontology and other reference ontologies.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 10
Core portion of MFI Ontology registration metamodel
Reference Ontology Whole
Reference Ontology Component
Reference Ontology Atomic Construct
Local Ontology Whole
0:*0:1Local Ontology Component
Local Ontology Atomic Construct0:1 0:*
sameAs
sameAs
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 11
Example1 (1 of 2)Suppose that ontology A consists of sentence RC1, RC2 and
RC3 as follows;
11
RC1
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="dimensionality"><rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Unit" /><rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Dimensionality" /></owl:ObjectProperty>
<owl:Class rdf:ID="KernelUnit"><rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Unit"/></owl:Class>
<KernelUnit rdf:ID="metre"><dimensionality><Dimensionality rdf:ID="length"/></dimensionality></KernelUnit>
RC2
RC3
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 12
Example1 (2 of 2)
NoteOWL constructs such as “ObjectProperty”, “subClassOf” etc. have no effects.
12
A URI Administered Info.
RC1 NamespaceURI Administered Info.
RC2 NamespaceURI Administered Info.
RC3 NamespaceURI Administered Info.
KernelUnit NamespaceURI Administered Info.
dimensionality NamespaceURI Administered Info.
Dimensionality NamespaceURI Administered Info.
Unit NamespaceURI Administered Info.
metre NamespaceURI Administered Info.
length NamespaceURI Administered Info.
Ontology Whole
Ontology Component
Ontology Atomic Construct
Metadata registered in MFI Ontology registration
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 13
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 14
Nature of ontologies
By nature,
ontologies are reused mutually and
ontologies evolve gradually
as they capture more semantics.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 1515
Example2First, ontology B uses ontology A.
Second, ontology A evolves from ver.1 to ver.2.But ontology B still uses ontology A ver.1.
Third, ontology C uses ontology A ver.2.
Note:This kind of situation often happens.
ontology B ontology A use
ontology Buse ontology A
Ver.2Ver.1evolves
ontology Buse ontology A
Ver.2Ver.1evolves
ontology Cuse
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 16
Problem of MFI Ontology registration Ed1
MFI Ontology registration needs to support facilities
to manage multi-versions of an ontology and
to manage how an ontology evolves.
However, MFI Ontology registration Ed1 does not have such facilities.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 17
Example1 (1 of 4) :roughly speakingSuppose that ontology A evolves as follows;
17
RC2
<owl:Class rdf:ID="KernelUnit"><owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#Unit/> </owl:Class>
RC1
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="dimensionality"><rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Unit" /><rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Dimensionality" /></owl:ObjectProperty>
RC2
<owl:Class rdf:ID="KernelUnit"><rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Unit"/></owl:Class>
RC3
<KernelUnit rdf:ID="metre"><dimensionality><Dimensionality rdf:ID="length"/></dimensionality></KernelUnit>
evolves
Note: “subClassOf “and “disjointWith” are very different semantically.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 18
Example1 (2 of 4) :roughly speakingAlthough RC2 evolves substantially, there is no change in MFI Ontology registration Ed1 except (Namespace)URI and some Adminitered Information
since “subClassOf” and “disjointWith” have no effect to MFI Ontology registration.
18
A URI Administered Info.
RC1 NamespaceURI Administered Info.
RC2 NamespaceURI Administered Info.
RC3 NamespaceURI Administered Info.
KernelUnit NamespaceURI Administered Info.
dimensionality NamespaceURI Administered Info.
Dimensionality NamespaceURI Administered Info.
Unit NamespaceURI Administered Info.
metre NamespaceURI Administered Info.
length NamespaceURI Administered Info.
Ontology Whole
Ontology Component
Ontology Atomic Construct
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 19
Example1 (3 of 4): more precisely speaking
Fortunately or unfortunately, usually, different versions of an ontology are identified by different URIs.
For example, The current version of famous OWL Wine ontology is identified by
http://www.w3. org /TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine, which is also xmlns and xml:base. The prior version is identified by http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine, which is also
xmlns and xml:base. So, in the current version, “wine” is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine#wine but, in
the prior version, it is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine#wine and they are different.
Then, in MFI Ontology registration registry,
every component and atomic constructs of the current version and of the prior version are regarded as different
since they are identified by NamespaceURI-prefixed name.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 20
Example1 (4 of 4) : more precisely speakingIn MFI Ontology registration, ontology A ver.1 and ontology A ver.2 are treated as comletely different since their
(Namespace)URIs are different, although they are practically same except RC2 are substantially different.
20
A URI _1 Admin. Info.
RC1 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
RC2 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
RC3 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
KernelUnit NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
dimensionality
NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
Dimensionality
NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
Unit NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
metre NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
length NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
Unit NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
A URI _2 Admin. Info.
RC1 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
RC2 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
RC3 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
KernelUnit NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
dimensionality
NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
Dimensionality
NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
metre NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
length NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
<ver. 1> <ver. 2>completely different
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 2121
Example2
In the case that ontology B uses ontology A ver.1 and that ontology C uses ontology A ver.2
What MFI Ontology registration can recognize is
In MFI Ontology registration Ed1, the fact that “ontology B uses ontology A ver.1” is represented as “an ontology_whole of ontology B consists of ontology_components of ontology A ver.1”.
But, ontology A ver.1 and ontology A ver.2 are different ontologies and not different versions of the same ontology.
and not
ontology Buse ontology A
ver.2ver.1evolves
ontology Cuse
ontology Buse
ontology A ver.1 ontology Cuse
ontology A ver.2
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 22
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
What is MFI Ontology registration Ed2?
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 supports facilities
to manage multi-versions of an ontology and
to manage how an ontology evolves,
since ontologies are reused mutually and
ontologies evolve gradually as they capture more semantics
by nature.
23232007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 24
Overview: example1
24
A URI _1 Admin. Info.
RC1 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
RC2 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
RC3 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
KernelUnit NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
dimensionality
NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
Dimensionality
NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
Unit NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
metre NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
length NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
Unit NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
A URI _2 Admin. Info.
RC1 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
RC2 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
RC3 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
KernelUnit NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
dimensionality
NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
Dimensionality
NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
metre NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
length NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
<ver. 1> <ver. 2>evolves
same
corresponds to
evolves from ver.1 to ver.2Some other metadata such as backward compatibility etc.
same
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
Three cases
There are three cases that an ontology evolves outside MFI Ontology registration registry.
Case1 Different URIs for each version of an ontology and
different URIs for each version of names in an otology
Case2 Different URIs for each version of an ontology, but mostly
the same URIs for each version of names in an ontology This is a typical case.
Case3 Same URI for each version of an ontology. Usually, this is the case that Persistent URLs are used.
e.g. http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
Since MFI Ontology registration is so generic, it should support all of them.
252007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
Case1 (1 of 2)
Different URIs for each version of an ontology and
different URIs for each version of symbols in an otologyThis is the case shown as the example1 in Overview (at slide 24)
etc.
It is not easy to decide whether the corresponding symbols have the same semantics or not.
262007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
Case1 (2 of 2)
For example, concerning “KernelUnit” Probably, many people say “KernelUnit in ver.1 and in ver.2 have different semantics because
in ver.1, KernelUnit is a subclass of Unit but in ver.2, KernelUnit is disjoint with Unit.
Then, how about Unit? Some people may say “Unit in ver.1 and in ver2 have different semantics because in ver.1 Unit
has KernelUnit as a subclass, but not in ver.2”. But, others may say “No. That difference is not about Unit but about KernelUnit .”
How about metre? Some people may say “Metre in ver.1 and in ver.2 have different semantics because in ver.1,
metre is an instance of Unit, but not in ver. 2”. But, probably many say “No. They are the same”
272007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
Case 2 (1 of 2)
Different URIs for each version of an ontology, but mostly
the same URIs for each version of names in an ontologySee example3 at next slide.
In this case, Unit, KernelUnit and metre are identical in ver.1 and ver.2 as symbols since they have the same NsURI_1 both in ver.1 and ver.2.
However, it is still not easy to decide whether they have the same semantics in ver.1 and ver.2.
282007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 29
Case2 (2 of 2): example 3
29
A URI _1 Admin. Info.
RC1 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
RC2 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
RC3 NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
KernelUnit NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
dimensionality
NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
Dimensionality
NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
Unit NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
metre NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
length NsURI_1 Admin. Info.
A URI _2 Admin. Info.
RC1 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
RC2 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
RC3 NsURI_2 Admin. Info.
<ver. 1> <ver. 2>evolves
evolves from ver.1 to ver.2Some other metadata such as backward compatibility etc.
same same
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
Case3
Same URI for each version of an ontologyThis is a case that an ontology is just updated and mulch-versions
cannot be supported.
MFI Ontology registration can at least update the administered information such as “version”, “effective date” etc.
302007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 31
Issues to be resolved
Whether fork-type evolution is acceptable or not?Maybe, for local ontologies, yes, but
for reference ontologies, no, since
reference ontologies should be standardized.
Whether a new version may have
the same URI as its prior version? If always only the latest version is necessary, it is fine.
Actually, Persistent URLs are very convenient.
But, if multi-versions are necessary, it is not advisable (i.e. Case 3).
Exact metadata (references and attributes) that MFI Ontology registration metamodel shall have.
China is extensively studying them.
31
ver.1
ver.2 ver.3
ver.4 ver.5
fork-type evolution
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 32
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded.
Motivation (1 of 2)
The relation between reference ontology and local ontology in MFI Ontology registration Ed1 needs to be expanded to a partial-ordered relation.
MFI Ontology registration Ed1 defines Reference Ontology and Local Ontology as follows;
Reference Ontology
–ontology that is usable and sharable by a community of interest Local Ontology
–ontology that is specialized for defined applications and based on at least one reference ontology
puts the following constraints on local ontology. A local_ontology_component shall be consisted of by exactly one local_ontology_whole and not by a
reference_ontology_whole since it is localized. A local_ontology_atomic_construct shall be used by exactly one local_ontology_component and not by a
reference_ontology_component since it is localized.
33332007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止 34
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded.
Motivation (2 of 2)
By nature, however, ontologies are reused mutually.
Even local ontologies should be able to reused by other local ontologies in some extent.
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 will introduce a partial order relation among local ontologies to control the extent that local ontologies can be reused by other local ontologies.
342007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
A partial ordered set “Reusable Level”
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 will introduce a partial ordered set called “Reusable Level”.There is an element R“Reusable Level”For any element e “Reusable Level”, e R
Example
35
R
L1 L2
L5L4
L3
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
A reference “reusability”
Ontology Whole, Ontology Component and Ontology Atomic Construct will have a reference called “reusability” to “Reusable Level” with its multiplicity 1:1.
Ontolgy Whole O has R as reusability
iff O is a reference ontology.
Ontology Component C has R as reusability
iff C is a reference ontology component.
Ontology Atomic Construct A has R as reusability
iff A is a reference ontology atomic construct.
36
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
Extended constraints for reusability
Extended constraints in ED2A local_ontology_component with reusability Ln can be consisted of
by an ontology_whole with reusability Lm
iff Lm Ln.A local_ontology_atomic_construct with reusability Ln can be used
by a local_ontology_component with reusability Lm
iff Lm Ln.
Note:This is a natural extension of the following constraints in Ed1.
A local_ontology_component shall be consisted of by exactly one local_ontology_whole and not by a reference_ontology_whole .
A local_ontology_atomic_construct shall be used by exactly one local_ontology_component and not by a reference_ontology_component.
37
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
ExampleA reference ontology component can be reused by any ontology
component since reference ontology component has maximum reusability R.
38
L3
R
L1 L2
L5L4
A local ontology
atomic construct
with reusability L1
can be reused by
a local ontology
component with
reusability L1, L3 or L4
and not with R, L2 or L5.
A local ontology
atomic construct
with reusability L2
can be reused by
a local ontology
component with
reusability L2, L3, L4 or L5
and not with R or L1.
1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
2) Ed2 will support ontology inclusion. (1 of 2)Ed1 does not support ontology inclusion such as “owl:import”.So, in the case of
Ed1 simply registers ontology A as follows, expanding “import”.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 39
A
C-A1 C-A2
A-A1 A-A2 A-A3
B
C-B1 C-B2
A-B1 A-B2
importsontology
sentence
symbol
ontology whole
ontology component
ontology atomic construct
A
C-A1 C-A2
A-A1 A-A2 A-A3
C-B1 C-B2
A-B1 A-B2
目的外使用・複製禁止
2) Ed2 will support ontology inclusion. (2 of 2)
But, Ed1 has a problem in the case that ontology B is not registered because in that case ontology A cannot expand ontology B.
So, Ed2 will simply register ontology A as it is as follows,
Note:
Since ontology B is not registered, the information on the ontology component and ontology atomic construct of ontology B cannot be gained, but a part of the information on the ontology whole of ontology B can be gained from ontology A.
ontology whole
ontology component
ontology atomic construct
A
C-A1 C-A2
A-A1 A-A2 A-A3
B imports
目的外使用・複製禁止
3) Ed2 will use IRIs, rather than URIs.
To support non-European characters, including Hungul, Chinese and Japanese character,
MFI Ontology registration Ed2 will use IRIs, rather than URIs.
IRI : RFC 3987 Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs),
IETF Proposed Standard
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 41
目的外使用・複製禁止 42
1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed1?
3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed2
5. Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫
目的外使用・複製禁止
Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
Evolution and reusability view
only if reusability of an ontology component is lessThanOrEqual to reusability of an ontology atomic construct.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 43
Ontology Whole
Ontology Component
Ontology Atomic Construct
sameAs
sameAs
evolvesTo
evolvesTo
correspondsTo
only if reusability of an ontology whole is lessThanOrEqual to reusability of an ontology component.
reusability
reusability
lessThanOrEqual
Reusable Level
imports
目的外使用・複製禁止
Overview of proposed Ed2 metamodel
Reference and Local Ontology view
only if reusability of an ontology component is lessThanOrEqual to reusability of an ontology atomic construct.
0:*0:1
0:1 0:*
sameAs
sameAs
only if reusability of an ontology whole is lessThanOrEqual to reusability of an ontology component.
evolvesTo
correspondsTo
0:1
0:*
0:*
0:1
evolvesTo0:1
0:*
evolvesTo
evolvesTo
correspondsTo evolvesTo0:1
evolvesTo
0:10:1
0:1
evolvesTo0:1 0:1
0:1
0:1
0:1
0:1
0:1
0:1
Local OntologyWhole
Local OntologyComponent
Local OntologyAtomic Construct
Reference OntologyAtomic Construct
Reference OntologyComponent
Reference OntologyWhole
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 44
Note: The associations “imports” are omitted just for simplicity
目的外使用・複製禁止
Thank you for your attention.MFI Ontology registration Ed2 WD is in preparation.Any comments and/or contributions are very welcome to
okabe.masao<at>tepco.co.jp.
2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 45