Issue 17424: Provide support for distinguishing asserted vs. inferred axioms (odm-rtf)
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Currently, the ODM 1.0 specification defines several stereotypes for representing an OWL ontology in UML using the ODM stereotypes for RDF and OWL.


The ODM spec is understandably updated to support OWL2, the current recommendation from the W3C.
It is not entirely clear which OWL2 constructs are supported in the ODM profile — a cross-reference table linking the entries of the quick ref. guide would be particularly helpful: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-quick-reference/


Also, in practice, it would be useful to have the flexibility of showing come axioms but not others.
For example, if we have (in functional syntax):


Declaration( Class( A ))
Declaration( Class( B ))
Declaration( Class( C )) 
SubCassOf( A B )
SubCassOf( B C ) 


Then, an OWL2 reasoner will infer the following axiom:


SubCassOf( A C )


Using the ODM profile, it should be possible to show selected subsets of an ontology.
For example:


view1:


Declaration( Class( A ))
Declaration( Class( B ))
Declaration( Class( C )) 
SubCassOf( A B )
SubCassOf( B C )


view2:


Declaration( Class( A ))
Declaration( Class( B ))
Declaration( Class( C )) 
SubCassOf( A B )
SubCassOf( B C )
SubCassOf( A C )


view3:


Declaration( Class( A ))
Declaration( Class( C )) 
SubCassOf( A C )


This brings up the question of adding support in the ODM profile to distinguish asserted vs. inferred axioms.
Perhaps there could be a flag — e.g., 


isAsserted : Boolean = true // set it to false for an inferred axiom — or-- 
isInferred : Boolean = false // set it to true for an inferred axiom


Finally, additional markup may be useful — e.g., showing whether an ontology is consistent or not.

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
June 12, 2012: received issue
Discussion: 
A number of the features described above go well beyond what a traditional UML tool, without an integrated reasoning engine, might provide.  However, the ability to consistently “mark” an ontology with additional content if such an integration were available would clearly be useful.  A “quick reference” capability would also be quite helpful to ODM users.  
We have determined that the best approach to addressing this issue is to defer it until revisions to support OWL 2 are complete, so that we can take a step back and provide a more thoughtful and thorough approach that takes all of the language modifications into account.

Disposition:	Deferred 

End of Annotations:=====

m: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (313K)" <nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "issues@omg.org" <issues@omg.org>
CC: "odm-rtf@omg.org" <odm-rtf@omg.org>
Subject: Provide support for distinguishing asserted vs. inferred axioms in
 the ODM profile for OWL2 and coverage of which OWL2 constructs it supports.
Thread-Topic: Provide support for distinguishing asserted vs. inferred
 axioms in the ODM profile for OWL2 and coverage of which OWL2 constructs it
 supports.
Thread-Index: AQHNSReQjGoJpQhs106SrEzHitHQ/w==
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 03:49:42 +0000
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421
x-originating-ip: [128.149.137.114]
X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized


Currently, the ODM 1.0 specification defines several stereotypes for representing an OWL ontology in UML using the ODM stereotypes for RDF and OWL.


The ODM spec is understandably updated to support OWL2, the current recommendation from the W3C.
It is not entirely clear which OWL2 constructs are supported in the ODM profile . a cross-reference table linking the entries of the quick ref. guide would be particularly helpful: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-quick-reference/


Also, in practice, it would be useful to have the flexibility of showing come axioms but not others.
For example, if we have (in functional syntax):


Declaration( Class( A ))
Declaration( Class( B ))
Declaration( Class( C )) 
SubCassOf( A B )
SubCassOf( B C ) 


Then, an OWL2 reasoner will infer the following axiom:


SubCassOf( A C )


Using the ODM profile, it should be possible to show selected subsets of an ontology.
For example:


view1:


Declaration( Class( A ))
Declaration( Class( B ))
Declaration( Class( C )) 
SubCassOf( A B )
SubCassOf( B C )


view2:


Declaration( Class( A ))
Declaration( Class( B ))
Declaration( Class( C )) 
SubCassOf( A B )
SubCassOf( B C )
SubCassOf( A C )


view3:


Declaration( Class( A ))
Declaration( Class( C )) 
SubCassOf( A C )


This brings up the question of adding support in the ODM profile to distinguish asserted vs. inferred axioms.
Perhaps there could be a flag . e.g., 


isAsserted : Boolean = true // set it to false for an inferred axiom . or-- 
isInferred : Boolean = false // set it to true for an inferred axiom


Finally, additional markup may be useful . e.g., showing whether an ontology is consistent or not.
Nicolas.