Issue 10853: Associations (odm-rtf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Critical Summary: Associations. In Section 16.2.1 (UML Kernel), the discussion around Tables 16.2 through 16.4 seems to be about relational implementations, rather than UML modeling in the sense that is important to OWL. My suggestion is to replace Tables 16.3 and 16.4 with the tabular forms of the metamodel, as in 16.2. The paragraph above Table 16.3, first sentence, modeling associations does not depend on the implementation of classes (the "implementation" usually refers to how the model is translated to a platform). Same comment on the second sentence, which says Table 16.2 is an implementation, when it is only a tabular form of the metamodel. The second sentence refers to the disjoint union of attributes, but there's nothing like this in UML. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 30, 2007: received issue Discussion: Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 30 Mar 2007 00:52:23 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Conrad Bock Company: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.giv Notification: No Specification: Ontology Definition Metamodel Section: Chapter 16 FormalNumber: ptc/06-10-11 Version: RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Revision Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) Description Associations. In Section 16.2.1 (UML Kernel), the discussion around Tables 16.2 through 16.4 seems to be about relational implementations, rather than UML modeling in the sense that is important to OWL. My suggestion is to replace Tables 16.3 and 16.4 with the tabular forms of the metamodel, as in 16.2. The paragraph above Table 16.3, first sentence, modeling associations does not depend on the implementation of classes (the "implementation" usually refers to how the model is translated to a platform). Same comment on the second sentence, which says Table 16.2 is an implementation, when it is only a tabular form of the metamodel. The second sentence refers to the disjoint union of attributes, but there's nothing like this in UML.