MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 Toward ontology evolution

MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 ~Toward ontology evolution management ~ OKABE, Masao Co-editor ISO/IEC 19763 -3 MFI Ontology registration project 2007. 12. 07

Outline 1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration ED 2 5. Overview of proposed Ed 2 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 2

1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 5. Overview of proposed Ed 2 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

What is MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? n. ISO/IEC 19763 -3 MFI Ontology registration Ed 1 lis a part of the Metamodel Framework Interoperability standards, and lwas published as a IS on March 1 st, 2007. n. Metamodel Framework Interoperability project lis multi-part project intending to promote interoperability of metamodels, models and ontologies etc. w w w Part 1 Reference model Part 2 Core model Part 3 Metamodel for ontology registration Part 4 Metamodel for model mapping Part 5 Metamodel for process models registration Part 6 Registration procedure l. Participating Counties: l. Main contributors: 2007/12/07 IS FCD IS, WD of Ed 2 in preparation CD WD in preparation Study Period Canada, China, Japan, Korea, UK, U. S. China, Japan, Korea 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 目的外使用・複製禁止 4

Features of MFI Ontology registration n. Features l. Very simple specifications as a first step w Think big, act samll! l. Simple and generic structure, irrelevant to languages –Ontology_Whole － Ontology_Component － Ontology_Atomic_Construct l. Providing a framework to ensure trustiness w Reference Ontology vs. Local Ontology n. 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. n. 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. 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 5

Simple and generic structure (1 of 4): Common basic structure of ontology n. Almost any ontology has this simple three granularity structure. Ontology l. An ontology consists of sentences. e. g. Example_Ontology consists of w Buyer has. Creditrating(Tony) w Buyer(Tony) w Creditrating(Credit-A) Sentence l. A sentence uses symbols. e. g. Buyer has. Creditrating(Tony) uses w Buyer w Creditrating w has w Tony w logical symbols , , (and variables ) 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 6

Simple and generic structure (2 of 3): MFI Ontology registration structure n. MFI Ontology registration consists of Ontology Whole, Ontology Component, Ontology Atomic Construct that correspond to lontology, sentence, symbol * respectively and that have ladministrative information ** of its correspondent lstructural information of this level la 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 7

Simple and generic structure (3 of 3): MFI Ontology registration structure Actual ontology Ontology MFI Ontology registration reference Ontology Whole +administrative info. consist. Of Sentence reference Ontology Component +administrative info use Symbol Ontology Atomic Construct reference +administrative info l. 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 l e. g. Administrative information etc. corresponding to w Example_Ontology l e. g. Administrative information etc. corresponding to each of w Buyer has. Creditrating(Tony) w Buyer(Tony) w Creditrating(Credit-A) l e. g. Administrative information etc. corresponding to of each w Buyer w Creditrating w has w Tony 目的外使用・複製禁止 8

Providing a framework to ensure trustiness Reference Ontology vs. Local Ontology n. Reference Ontology l. Standardized ontology that is usable and sharable by a community of interest l. Trustworthy to others l. A reference ontology consists of sentences only in reference ontologies. l. A sentence in a reference ontology uses symbols only in reference ontologies. n. Local Ontology l. Localized ontology for some applications based on Reference Ontologies l. It is its user’s responsibility to trust this ontology or not. l. A local ontology consists of sentences both in this local ontology and other reference ontologies. l. 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 9

Core portion of MFI Ontology registration metamodel Reference Ontology Whole Reference Ontology Component Local Ontology Whole same. As Local Ontology Component 0: 1 0: * Reference Ontology Atomic Construct 2007/12/07 same. As 0: 1 0: * 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 Local Ontology Atomic Construct 目的外使用・複製禁止 10

Example 1 (1 of 2) n. Suppose that ontology A consists of sentence RC 1, RC 2 and RC 3 as follows; 2007/12/07 RC 1 <owl: Object. Property rdf: ID="dimensionality"> <rdfs: domain rdf: resource="#Unit" /> <rdfs: range rdf: resource="#Dimensionality" /> </owl: Object. Property> RC 2 <owl: Class rdf: ID="Kernel. Unit"> <rdfs: sub. Class. Of rdf: resource="#Unit"/> </owl: Class> RC 3 <Kernel. Unit rdf: ID="metre"> <dimensionality> <Dimensionality rdf: ID="length"/> </dimensionality> </Kernel. Unit> 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

Example 1 (2 of 2) n. Metadata registered in MFI Ontology registration A URI Administered Info. Ontology Whole Ontology Component Ontology Atomic Construct RC 1 Namespace. URI Administered Info. Unit Namespace. URI Administered Info. RC 2 Namespace. URI Administered Info. Kernel. Unit Namespace. URI Administered Info. dimensionality Namespace. URI Administered Info. RC 3 Namespace. URI Administered Info. length Namespace. URI Administered Info. Dimensionality Namespace. URI Administered Info. metre Namespace. URI Administered Info. n. Note l OWL constructs such as “Object. Property”, “sub. Class. Of” etc. have no effects. 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

1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 5. Overview of proposed Ed 2 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 13

Nature of ontologies n. By nature, nontologies are reused mutually and nontologies 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 14

Example 2 n. First, ontology B uses ontology A. use ontology A n. Second, ontology A evolves from ver. 1 to ver. 2. But ontology B still uses ontology A ver. 1. ontology B use ontology A Ver. 1 evolves Ver. 2 n. Third, ontology C uses ontology A ver. 2. ontology B use ontology A Ver. 1 evolves Ver. 2 use ontology C Note: This kind of situation often happens. 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 15

Problem of MFI Ontology registration Ed 1 n MFI Ontology registration needs to support facilities to manage multi-versions of an ontology and to manage how an ontology evolves. n However, MFI Ontology registration Ed 1 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 16

Example 1 (1 of 4) : roughly speaking n. Suppose that ontology A evolves as follows; RC 1 <owl: Object. Property rdf: ID="dimensionality"> <rdfs: domain rdf: resource="#Unit" /> <rdfs: range rdf: resource="#Dimensionality" /> </owl: Object. Property> RC 2 <owl: Class rdf: ID="Kernel. Unit"> <rdfs: sub. Class. Of rdf: resource="#Unit"/> </owl: Class> <owl: Class rdf: ID="Kernel. Unit"> <owl: disjoint. With rdf: resource="#Unit/> </owl: Class> RC 3 <Kernel. Unit rdf: ID="metre"> <dimensionality> <Dimensionality rdf: ID="length"/> </dimensionality> </Kernel. Unit> 2007/12/07 evolves Note: “sub. Class. Of “and “disjoint. With” are very different semantically. 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

Example 1 (2 of 4) : roughly speaking n. Although RC 2 evolves substantially, there is no change in MFI Ontology registration Ed 1 except (Namespace)URI and some Adminitered Information since “sub. Class. Of” and “disjoint. With” have no effect to MFI Ontology registration. A URI Administered Info. Ontology Whole Ontology Component Ontology Atomic Construct 2007/12/07 RC 1 Namespace. URI Administered Info. dimensionality Namespace. URI Administered Info. RC 2 Namespace. URI Administered Info. Dimensionality Namespace. URI Administered Info. Unit Namespace. URI Administered Info. metre Namespace. URI Administered Info. Kernel. Unit Namespace. URI Administered Info. 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 RC 3 Namespace. URI Administered Info. length Namespace. URI Administered Info. 目的外使用・複製禁止 18

Example 1 (3 of 4): more precisely speaking n. Fortunately or unfortunately, usually, different versions of an ontology are identified by different URIs. l. For example, w The current version of famous OWL Wine ontology is identified by http: //www. w 3. org /TR/2003/PR-owl-guide 20031209/wine, which is also xmlns and xml: base. w The prior version is identified by http: //www. w 3. org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine, which is also xmlns and xml: base. w So, in the current version, “wine” is http: //www. w 3. org/TR/2003/PR-owl-guide-20031209/wine#wine but, in the prior version, it is http: //www. w 3. org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine#wine and they are different. n. 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 Namespace. URI-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 19

Example 1 (4 of 4) : more precisely speaking n. In 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 RC 2 are substantially different. completely different <ver. 1> A URI _1 Admin. Info. RC 1 RC 2 RC 3 Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. dimensionality Unit Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. Dimensionality Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. 2007/12/07 metre RC 1 Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. Unit dimensionality Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. length Dimensionality Ns. URI_1 Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 RC 3 RC 2 Ns. URI_1 Kernel. Unit Ns. URI_1 <ver. 2> A URI _2 metre Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. Kernel. Unit Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. 目的外使用・複製禁止 length Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. 20

Example 2 n. In the case that ontology B uses ontology A ver. 1 and that ontology C uses ontology A ver. 2 n. What MFI Ontology registration can recognize is ontology B use ontology A ver. 1 ontology A ver. 2 use ontology C l In MFI Ontology registration Ed 1, 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”. l But, ontology A ver. 1 and ontology A ver. 2 are different ontologies and not different versions of the same ontology. and not ontology B 2007/12/07 use ontology A ver. 1 evolves ver. 2 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 use ontology C 目的外使用・複製禁止 21

1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration 5. Overview of proposed Ed 2 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 22

What is MFI Ontology registration Ed 2? n. MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 supports facilities to manage multi-versions of an ontology and to manage how an ontology evolves, nsince ontologies are reused mutually and ontologies evolve gradually as they capture more semantics by nature. 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 23

Overview: example 1 Ø evolves from ver. 1 to ver. 2 Ø Some other metadata such as backward compatibility etc. A URI _1 Øevolves Admin. Info. <ver. 1> RC 1 RC 2 RC 3 Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. dimensionality Unit Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. Dimensionality Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. metre Øsame Ns. URI_1 Kernel. Unit Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. length Admin. Info. RC 1 <ver. 2> RC 3 RC 2 Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. dimensionality Øsame metre Unit Admin. Info. A URI _2 Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. Dimensionality Ns. URI_1 Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. Kernel. Unit Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. length Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. Øcorresponds to 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 24

Three cases n. There are three cases that an ontology evolves outside MFI Ontology registration registry. l. Case 1 w Different URIs for each version of an ontology and different URIs for each version of names in an otology l. Case 2 w Different URIs for each version of an ontology, but mostly the same URIs for each version of names in an ontology w This is a typical case. l. Case 3 w Same URI for each version of an ontology. w Usually, this is the case that Persistent URLs are used. e. g. http: //purl. org/dc/elements/1. 1/ n. Since MFI Ontology registration is so generic, it should support all of them. 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 25

Case 1 (1 of 2) n. Different URIs for each version of an ontology and different URIs for each version of symbols in an otology l. This is the case shown as the example 1 in Overview (at slide 24) etc. n. It is not easy to decide whether the corresponding symbols have the same semantics or not. 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 26

Case 1 (2 of 2) l. For example, concerning “Kernel. Unit” w Probably, many people say “Kernel. Unit in ver. 1 and in ver. 2 have different semantics because in ver. 1, Kernel. Unit is a subclass of Unit but in ver. 2, Kernel. Unit is disjoint with Unit. l. Then, how about Unit? w Some people may say “Unit in ver. 1 and in ver 2 have different semantics because in ver. 1 Unit has Kernel. Unit as a subclass, but not in ver. 2”. w But, others may say “No. That difference is not about Unit but about Kernel. Unit. ” l. How about metre? w 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”. w But, probably many say “No. They are the 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 27

Case 2 (1 of 2) n. Different URIs for each version of an ontology, but mostly the same URIs for each version of names in an ontology l. See example 3 at next slide. n. In this case, Unit, Kernel. Unit and metre are identical in ver. 1 and ver. 2 as symbols since they have the same Ns. URI_1 both in ver. 1 and ver. 2. n. However, it is still not easy to decide whether they have the same semantics in ver. 1 and 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 28

Case 2 (2 of 2): example 3 A URI _1 <ver. 1> RC 1 Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. Ø evolves from ver. 1 to ver. 2 Ø Some other metadata such as backward compatibility etc. Øevolves Admin. Info. RC 2 RC 3 Ns. URI_1 Ns. URI_2 Admin. Info. metre length Dimensionality Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. 2007/12/07 RC 2 <ver. 2> Ns. URI_1 Øsame Unit Admin. Info. RC 1 RC 3 A URI _2 dimensionality Ns. URI_1 Øsame Kernel. Unit Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 Admin. Info. Ns. URI_1 Admin. Info. 目的外使用・複製禁止 29

Case 3 n. Same URI for each version of an ontology l. This is a case that an ontology is just updated and mulch-versions cannot be supported. l MFI Ontology registration can at least update the administered information such as “version”, “effective 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 30

Issues to be resolved n. Whether fork-type evolution is acceptable or not? l Maybe, for local ontologies, yes, but for reference ontologies, no, since reference ontologies should be standardized. n. Whether a new version may have the same URI as its prior version? ver. 1 ver. 2 ver. 4 ver. 3 ver. 5 fork-type evolution l If always only the latest version is necessary, it is fine. w Actually, Persistent URLs are very convenient. l But, if multi-versions are necessary, it is not advisable (i. e. Case 3). n. Exact metadata (references and attributes) that MFI Ontology registration metamodel shall have. l China is extensively studying them. 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 31

1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 5. Overview of proposed Ed 2 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 32

1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded. Motivation (1 of 2) n. The relation between reference ontology and local ontology in MFI Ontology registration Ed 1 needs to be expanded to a partial-ordered relation. n. MFI Ontology registration Ed 1 ldefines Reference Ontology and Local Ontology as follows; w Reference Ontology –ontology that is usable and sharable by a community of interest w Local Ontology –ontology that is specialized for defined applications and based on at least one reference ontology lputs the following constraints on local ontology. w 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. w 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. 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 33

1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded. Motivation (2 of 2) n. By nature, however, ontologies are reused mutually. n. Even local ontologies should be able to reused by other local ontologies in some extent. n. MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 will introduce a partial order relation among local ontologies to control the extent that local ontologies can be reused by other local 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 34

1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded A partial ordered set “Reusable Level” n. MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 will introduce a partial ordered set called “Reusable Level”. l. There is an element RÎ “Reusable Level” l. For any element e Î “Reusable Level”, e £ R R l. Example L 1 L 2 L 4 L 5 L 3 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 35

1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded A reference “reusability” n. Ontology Whole, Ontology Component and Ontology Atomic Construct will have a reference called “reusability” to “Reusable Level” with its multiplicity 1: 1. n. Ontolgy Whole O has R as reusability iff O is a reference ontology. n. Ontology Component C has R as reusability iff C is a reference ontology component. n. Ontology Atomic Construct A has R as reusability iff A is a reference 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 36

1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded Extended constraints for reusability n. Extended constraints in ED 2 l. A local_ontology_component with reusability Ln can be consisted of by an ontology_whole with reusability Lm iff Lm £ Ln. l. A local_ontology_atomic_construct with reusability Ln can be used by a local_ontology_component with reusability Lm iff Lm £ Ln. Note: l. This is a natural extension of the following constraints in Ed 1. w A local_ontology_component shall be consisted of by exactly one local_ontology_whole and not by a reference_ontology_whole. w A local_ontology_atomic_construct shall be used by exactly one local_ontology_component and not by a reference_ontology_component. 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 37

1) Relation between reference and local ontology will be expanded Example l. A reference ontology component can be reused by any ontology component since reference ontology component has maximum reusability R. R L 1 L 2 l. A local ontology atomic construct with reusability L 1 L 4 can be reused by L 5 a local ontology component with L 3 reusability L 1, L 3 or L 4 and not with R, L 2 or L 5. 2007/12/07 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 l. A local ontology atomic construct with reusability L 2 can be reused by a local ontology component with reusability L 2, L 3, L 4 or L 5 and not with R or L 1. 目的外使用・複製禁止 38

2) Ed 2 will support ontology inclusion. (1 of 2) n. Ed 1 does not support ontology inclusion such as “owl: import”. n. So, in the case of imports ontology sentence symbol A B C-A 1 A-A 1 C-A 2 A-A 3 C-B 1 C-B 2 A-B 1 A-B 2 n. Ed 1 simply registers ontology A as follows, expanding “import”. A ontology whole ontology component ontology atomic construct 2007/12/07 C-A 1 A-A 1 C-A 2 A-A 3 東京電力・システム企画部・岡部雅夫 C-B 1 C-B 2 A-B 1 A-B 2 目的外使用・複製禁止 39

2) Ed 2 will support ontology inclusion. (2 of 2) n. But, Ed 1 has a problem in the case that ontology B is not registered because in that case ontology A cannot expand ontology B. n. So, Ed 2 will simply register ontology A as it is as follows, ontology whole ontology component ontology atomic construct imports A C-A 1 A-A 1 B C-A 2 A-A 3 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. 目的外使用・複製禁止

3) Ed 2 will use IRIs, rather than URIs. n. To support non-European characters, including Hungul, Chinese and Japanese character, MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 will use IRIs, rather than URIs. l. 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 目的外使用・複製禁止 41

1. What is MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 2. What lacks in MFI Ontology registration Ed 1? 3. Evolution management in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 4. Other topics in MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 5. Overview of proposed Ed 2 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 42

Overview of proposed Ed 2 metamodel n. Evolution and reusability view Reusable Level Ontology Whole less. Than. Or. Equal imports reusability evolves. To only if reusability of an ontology whole is less. Than. Or. Equal to reusability of an ontology component. Ontology Component same. As reusability evolves. To only if reusability of an ontology component is less. Than. Or. Equal to reusability of an ontology atomic construct. Ontology Atomic Construct corresponds. To same. As 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 43

Overview of proposed Ed 2 metamodel n. Reference and Local Ontology view 0: 1 Reference Ontology evolves. To Local Ontology 0: 1 evolves. To Whole 0: 1 0: * 0: 1 only if reusability of an ontology component evolves. To is less. Than. Or. Equal to reusability of an ontology atomic construct. 0: 1 Reference Ontology same. As Local Ontology 0: 1 evolves. To Component 0: 1 0: * Component 0: * 0: 1 evolves. To only if reusability of an ontology whole is less. Than. Or. Equal to reusability of an ontology component. 0: 1 Reference Ontology same. As Local Ontology 0: 1 Atomic Construct 0: 1 0: * Atomic Construct corresponds. To 0: 1 0: * 0: 1 evolves. To corresponds. To Note: The associations “imports” are omitted just for simplicity 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 44

n. Thank you for your attention. l. MFI Ontology registration Ed 2 WD is in preparation. l. Any comments and/or contributions are very welcome to okabe. masao<at>tepco. jp. 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 45