Issue 10885: Table 16.10 (odm-rtf)
Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: Table 16.10. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.10, the names of classes are capitalized in UML. The UML element corresponding to OWL subproperty is property subsetting. N-aries and association classes are not well-supported in OWL, so don't belong in a table of common features (see other issues on n-aries and association classes). 

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 01:02:52 -0500
To: <issues@omg.org>
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
Table 16.10. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.10, the names of classes are capitalized in UML. The UML element corresponding to OWL subproperty is property subsetting. N-aries and association classes are not well-supported in OWL, so don't belong in a table of common features (see other issues on n-aries and association classes). 


From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:48:09 -0400 (EDT)
To: odm-ftf@omg.org
Subject: Issue 10885
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




I had trouble trying to edit the notes field in the spreadsheet
for issue 10885 so I am sending my comments to the list.


1) I now agree with Roy's sentiments that the terms in Table 16.10
were meant to be informal, so we need not duplicate capitalization
used in the language definitions within this table.  Maybe getting rid
of the camel case will make this clearer.?


2) I am unsure of the use of generalization in UML2.  I am inclined to
take Conrad's word that property subsetting in UML 2 is a better
analog to subproperties in rdf and owl.


3) I agree with Conrad that rdf and owl do not have native support for
n-ary relations or association class like constructs.  Therefore, we
should delete this row from this table of "Common Features of UML and
OWL".


4) Add cardinality to the OWL elements column for the multiplicity row
and change the comment to read: OWL cardinality constraints declared
only for property range.


5) Dependency relations are not supported natively by rdf and owl.
Shouldn't the dependency row also be deleted following the same logic
as in 3 above?

-Evan