Issue 13977: rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency. (odm-rtf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Critical Summary: rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency. These figures use associations as if they were links: Figure 14.6: Property hasColor Without Specified Domain, Class Notation Figure 14.8: Property hasColor With Specified Domain and Range, Class Notation Figure 14.12: Property Subsetting - Class Notation Figure 14.14: rdfsRange Stereotype Notation - Class Notation for RDF Property Figure 14.23: owl:Cardinality - Restricted Multiplicity in Subtype Figure 14.13 «rdfsDomain» Stereotype Notation - Class Notation for RDF Property Figure 14.27: Property Redefinition for owl:allValuesFrom Using Classes Figure 14.28: Property Redefinition for owl:hasValue Using Classes Maybe others (any showing rdfsDomain/Range are probably incorrect) These should be changed to dependencies, per the discussion in Santa Clara, and the definition of RDFSDomain and RDFSRange stereotypes changed accordingly. Resolution: Eliminate UML::Class as a base class for RDF properties, modify the notation for rdfs:domain and rdfs:range to use dependencies rather than associations, and add a capability for surrogate property definition, where the surrogate notation uses UML::Class with dependencies linking the surrogates back to the AssociationClass(es) that define the base property. Clarify text defining the notation for RDF property (and OWL object and datatype properties) as appropriate. Note: The revisions described below should be applied prior to application of the changes for Issue 12563. Revised Text: see pages 92 - 102 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details Actions taken: June 11, 2009: received issue April 25, 2014: closed issue Discussion: While direct representation of RDF properties as classes may not have provided “proper” notation from a UML perspective, neither would representation of RDF properties without some capacity to represent property hierarchies without unnecessary detail, (as one of many examples), be acceptable to vocabulary and ontology developers. In fact, for representation of properties in OWL, a “standalone” notation for complex properties and restrictions that does not require the modeller to drag property endpoints around on diagrams is essential. This resolution is intended to (1) eliminate the concerns with respect to basic property notation for RDF and OWL and (2) address the modelling requirements for properties in RDF and OWL that motivated the use of UML::Class as a base for properties in the first place, through introduction of the surrogate. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 11 Jun 2009 16:46:37 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Conrad Bock Company: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Ontology Definition Metamodel Section: UML Profile for OWL and RDF FormalNumber: ptc/2008-09-06 Version: RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Revision Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080219 Firefox/2.0.0.12 Navigator/9.0.0.6 Description rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency. These figures use associations as if they were links: Figure 14.6: Property hasColor Without Specified Domain, Class Notation Figure 14.8: Property hasColor With Specified Domain and Range, Class Notation Figure 14.12: Property Subsetting - Class Notation Figure 14.14: rdfsRange Stereotype Notation - Class Notation for RDF Property Figure 14.23: owl:Cardinality - Restricted Multiplicity in Subtype Figure 14.13 «rdfsDomain» Stereotype Notation - Class Notation for RDF Property Figure 14.27: Property Redefinition for owl:allValuesFrom Using Classes Figure 14.28: Property Redefinition for owl:hasValue Using Classes Maybe others (any showing rdfsDomain/Range are probably incorrect) These should be changed to dependencies, per the discussion in Santa Clara, and the definition of RDFSDomain and RDFSRange stereotypes changed accordingly.