Issue 10869: N-aries (odm-ftf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Critical Summary: N-aries. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), second paragraph under Figure 16.3, association classes are not the same as naries. The translation given to N-ary associations is incomplete, because n-ary associations have multiplicities. These will not translate to cardinalities of binaries, at least not without a constraint to ensure there is only one instances of the association class in OWL for each link in UML. Resolution: Replace text as described below. Revised Text: The following is the current contents of this paragraph: This specification takes advantage of the fact that an N-ary relation among types T1 ... TN, or an association class with attributes, is formally equivalent to a set R of identifiers together with N projection functions P1, ..., PN, where Pi:R -> Ti. Thereby N-ary UML associations are translated to OWL classes with bundles of binary functional properties. Replace this paragraph with the following: This specification takes advantage of the fact that both an N-ary relation among types T1 ... TN and an association class with attributes are formally equivalent to a set R of identifiers together with N projection functions P1, ..., PN, where Pi:R -> Ti. Thereby both association classes and N-ary UML associations are translated to OWL classes with bundles of binary functional properties. Actions taken: March 30, 2007: received issue January 19, 2009: closed issue Discussion: Defer to 2nd FTF End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 30 Mar 2007 00:57:46 -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 N-aries. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), second paragraph under Figure 16.3, association classes are not the same as naries. The translation given to N-ary associations is incomplete, because n-ary associations have multiplicities. These will not translate to cardinalities of binaries, at least not without a constraint to ensure there is only one instances of the association class in OWL for each link in UML. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: developing the suggested resolution for issue 10869 (Naries) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:08:51 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcfpmxVOEzOgNjpLTFCqjy986Oo76AAE8RaA X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Evan, et al, I posted a proposed resolution to 10869 (Naries) on the wiki: http://tinyurl.com/2nevx8. Conrad From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:00:40 -0400 (EDT) To: odm-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: developing the suggested resolution for issue 10869 (Naries) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: ewallace@mailhost.mel.nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Conrad wrote: >I posted a proposed resolution to 10869 (Naries) on >the wiki: http://tinyurl.com/2nevx8. Having read the proposed resolution, I don't think it is low hanging fruit and so will not roll it up with the non-controversial resolutions that I have ready for chapter 16. Either of the proposed solutions in Conrad's write up leaves us with the question of why the n-ary association to binary property mapping is in the chapter at all. We should defer this issue to after Jacksonville, when we have time to do the editing that will be required for which-ever resolution we choose for this issue. -EVan Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: , Subject: RE: developing the suggested resolution for issue 10869 (Naries) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:13:13 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acfpt2ximUIqvCpiTmeIBwW9uTs53gAAEjAw X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Evan, > We should defer this issue to after Jacksonville, when we have time > to do the editing that will be required for which-ever resolution we > choose for this issue. I don't mind deferring any issue if the FTF will be extended (perhaps this was already agreed, not sure). Conrad