Issue 12400: Examples provided for owl:inverseOf are misleading (odm-rtf) Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mrs. Elisa F. Kendall, ekendall(at)thematix.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: From email dated 3/12/2008 from SRI, and as discussed (and documented in the minutes from the ODM FTF2 F2F DC meeting: Section 14.2.6.5 - Simple association with properties at the end is a nice readable notation. However, the "brotherOf" property between the two classes in Figure 14.28 could be duplicated on an association between two other classes on the same diagram, but the would be unrelated in the UML model, whereas in OWL they would be a single property with multiple domains and ranges. (This comment applies also to similar graphical representation shown in other sections). So -- this is true. It is managed in UML via the namespace of the relation, which may assume that you're not trying to determine all possible values with each property. The example is not a good one and could lead to inconsistent interpretation. We should get a better example. Also, we need to decide what the interpretation of the role name is, when you have mutiples (when you assume that it is or is not in the same namespace). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 17, 2008: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 17 Apr 2008 20:52:44 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Elisa Kendall Company: Sandpiper Software, Inc. mailFrom: ekendall@sandsoft.com Notification: No Specification: Examples provided for owl:inverseOf are misleading Section: 14.2.6.5 FormalNumber: ptc/07-09-09 Version: ODM 1.0 Beta 2 Specification RevisionDate: 11/2007 Page: 170-171 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1) Description From email dated 3/12/2008 from SRI, and as discussed (and documented in the minutes from the ODM FTF2 F2F DC meeting: Section 14.2.6.5 - Simple association with properties at the end is a nice readable notation. However, the "brotherOf" property between the two classes in Figure 14.28 could be duplicated on an association between two other classes on the same diagram, but the would be unrelated in the UML model, whereas in OWL they would be a single property with multiple domains and ranges. (This comment applies also to similar graphical representation shown in other sections). So -- this is true. It is managed in UML via the namespace of the relation, which may assume that you're not trying to determine all possible values with each property. The example is not a good one and could lead to inconsistent interpretation. We should get a better example. Also, we need to decide what the interpretation of the role name is, when you have mutiples (when you assume that it is or is not in the same namespace).