Issue 16035: In Annex F the use of  OWLClass::/isClassKind: and OWLClass::/hasRestrictionKind is not sufficient (odm-rtf)
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary:  In Annex F the use of  OWLClass::/isClassKind: and OWLClass::/hasRestrictionKind is not sufficient to avoid the need for large numbers of multiply-inherited classes e.g. IndividualOWLIntersectionClass since isClassKind does not capture the specific properties of the subclass e.g. OWLintersectionOf. Furthermore isClassKind should not be derived (in the same way isSymmetric should not be derived). To avoid the large number of multiple-inherited class a generic association OWLClass::relatedClass[0..*] would need to be added – which would stand in for OWLintersectionOf, OWLunionOf, OWLcomplementOf depending on the value of isClassKind. And another association to Individual for OWLoneOf. And it gets still messier to try to capture all the relationships of OWLRestriction. However the larger question is whether all this multiple inheritance is needed : since, as I understand it, all these subclasses of OWLClass will only be instantiated by anonymous classes, and it does not make sense that anonymous classes could also be reified as Individuals/Properties.

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
February 16, 2011: received issue
April 25, 2014: closed issue
Discussion: 
The RTF has determined that due to SMOF, Annex F is no longer required and the Annex should be deleted, per the resolution to issue 18834.  Thus, this issue is closed to the resolution of 18834.

Disposition:	Resolved

End of Annotations:=====
ubject: Issues on ODM metamodel
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:07:01 -0800
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Issues on ODM metamodel
Thread-Index: AcvODJGE0bKWyV4TTVamVfqNduRiaQ==
From: "Pete Rivett" <pete.rivett@adaptive.com>
To: <issues@omg.org>
Cc: <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, <evan.wallace@nist.gov>,
        <nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov>


I.d appreciate early feedback on these, especially the following where I.m less sure of my ground: 6, 9.

This is issue # 16035

In Annex F the use of  OWLClass::/isClassKind: and OWLClass::/hasRestrictionKind is not sufficient

 In Annex F the use of  OWLClass::/isClassKind: and OWLClass::/hasRestrictionKind is not sufficient to avoid the need for large numbers of multiply-inherited classes e.g. IndividualOWLIntersectionClass since isClassKind does not capture the specific properties of the subclass e.g. OWLintersectionOf. Furthermore isClassKind should not be derived (in the same way isSymmetric should not be derived). To avoid the large number of multiple-inherited class a generic association OWLClass::relatedClass[0..*] would need to be added . which would stand in for OWLintersectionOf, OWLunionOf, OWLcomplementOf depending on the value of isClassKind. And another association to Individual for OWLoneOf. And it gets still messier to try to capture all the relationships of OWLRestriction. However the larger question is whether all this multiple inheritance is needed : since, as I understand it, all these subclasses of OWLClass will only be instantiated by anonymous classes, and it does not make sense that anonymous classes could also be reified as Individuals/Properties.