Issue 10892: Boolean combination (odm-rtf)
Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: Boolean combination. In Section 16.5.1 (Predicate Definition Language), third sentence, UML supports the equivalent of unionOf. 

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 01:04:20 -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
Boolean combination. In Section 16.5.1 (Predicate Definition Language), third sentence, UML supports the equivalent of unionOf. 

Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:56:47 -0400
From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320)
To: odm-rtf@omg.org
Subject: Editorial concern with proposed resolution to Issue 10892
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information
X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n4TIulA1012173
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: 
X-MailScanner-From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1244228208.48382@5/df47jcWMKy4DI8liLbUA
X-Spam-Status: No




Hello,


While I have no problem with the technical content of the proposed
resolution to ODM Issue 10892 Boolean combination, I do have an
editorial concern.  The proposal suggests adding a sentence about
a feature of UML in the middle of a section discussing features for
class description in OWL.  While the context of all this text concerns
the similarities and differences between UML and OWL, I think the
text would be less jarring to the reader if the comment about UML
features for unionOf-like constructs was parenthetical or better yet a
footnote referenced from unionOf or the end of the sentence which
mentions unionOf.


Not sure that there is any mechanism for making friendly amendments
like this in revision task force issue resolution votes  .