Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-owl] API as Ontology

Faraz Fallahi faraz.fallahi at
Mon Aug 31 07:11:34 PDT 2009

Hi Jean-Marc,

thx for the response. Right now my applied rules look like this:

Java class --> OWL class
Java extended or implemented class -> OWL class which is subclassOf another
Java method --> OWL instanceOf the OWL class related to the method

Combined with your idea i would conclude these rules:

Java class --> OWL class
Java extended or implemented class -> OWL instance ("instance
extends/implements class")
Java method --> OWL property

I dont think that i need a mapping from java Instance to OWL, because i just
need a generell API-maping.
UML would go a little over the top for me. but ill keep it in the back of my
Its a pity that there is no OWL equivalent of methods (functions). I think
right now nothing seems to be against the use of alternative (2) but if you
have other suggestions im happy to read them.
Same applies for anyone else who has something to say about this :)

greetings faraz

2009/8/31 Jean-Marc Vanel <jeanmarc.vanel at>

> Hi Faraz
> If I understand well, you have a bunch of Java classes (or interfaces) ,
> and you want to translate that into OWL.
> Obviously you want to apply these rules:
> Java class --> OWL class
> Java properties (JavaBean properties) --> OWL property
> Java instance --> OWL instance
> Now methods are a different beast. What I would do is add them as
> predicates applied to the OWL classes, because there is no OWL equivalent of
> methods (functions).
> About the predicates and classes to use for modelling methods, I feel that
> the best is to reuse an established vocabulary, namely UML.
> Right now, with the EulerGUI project (,
> I'm working to translate all of UML2 metamodel into OWL. I already have a
> raw N3 (RDF) representation of it, and I'm tuning the translation rules.
> Please stay tuned:). But this not mandatory for your needs.
> To actually generate the OWL + UML annotations for methods, you could do
> straightforward Java introspection, from Class to Method to parameters. Then
> generate N3 turtle, much easier than RDF-XML.
> Hope this helps.
> 2009/8/31 Faraz Fallahi <faraz.fallahi at>
>> hi
>> im trying to generate an ontology out of an API. Now i wonder if how i
>> should represent the different elements. Some essential questions bother me
>> :
>> Should an Object be represented as a concept or as an instance? When i
>> represent them as concepts should a function be represented as the instance
>> of its Object concept or is it better to represent functions as instances of
>> a generell concept called "function"?
>> My first thought was to represent classes (objects) as concepts and their
>> functions as instances. I tried to google similar works for inspirations but
>> with no success yet.
>> I would really enjoy a little discussion about this and your thoughts. If
>> you know about "API ontologies" i would really appreciate it if you could
>> forward me.
>> greetings
>> faraz
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> protege-owl at
>> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> --
> Jean-Marc Vanel
> Consulting, services, training,
> Rule-based programming, Semantic Web
> +33 (0)6 89 16 29 52 -- +33 (0)1 39 55 58 16
> ( we rarely listen to voice messages, please send a mail instead )
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the protege-owl mailing list