Issues for 2nd Ontology Definition Metamodel Finalization Task Force
To comment on any of these issues, send email to odm-ftf@omg.org. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to issues@omg.org.
List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)
Issue 10839: UML References
Issue 10840: Annex A missing model library
Issue 10841: RestrictionClass constraint [1].
Issue 10842: Section 8.2 wording
Issue 10847: Chapter 16 purpose
Issue 10852: Classes and properties wording
Issue 10854: Class = set of instances
Issue 10855: Extents. In Section 16.2.2
Issue 10856: Modeled instances
Issue 10857: Table 16.5
Issue 10858: M0 implementation of a class
Issue 10860: Concretely represented
Issue 10861: UML Thing 1
Issue 10862: Table 16.6
Issue 10868: Page 188 formatting
Issue 11101: Common Logic Metamodel is out of sync with the ISO FDIS CL specification
Issue 11103: Role name of superClass
Issue 11104: Role name of superProperty
Issue 11105: Bi-directional URIReferenceForNamespace association
Issue 11106: Cardinality of OWLInverseOf
Issue 11304: The RDF/S and XML Schema library has some metalevel mixups
Issue 10839: UML References (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
UML References. The UML 2 reference on page 4 can be replaced with version 2.1.1, formal/07-02-05, http://doc.omg.org/formal/07-02-05 The UML Infra reference can be replaced with version 2.1.1, formal/07-03-06, http://doc.omg.org/formal/07-02-06
Resolution: Replace references as indicated.
Revised Text: 1. In Chapter 3, Normative References, revise the reference identified as [UML2] to read:
Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.1.1. OMG Specification, formal/07-02-05. Available at http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-02-05.pdf.
2. In Chapter 3, Normative References, revise the reference identified as [UML Infra] to read:
Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure, version 2.1.1. OMG Specification, formal/07-02-06. Available at http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-02-06.pdf.
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10840: Annex A missing model library (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: Annex A missing model library. Appendix A is missing the UML Profile for OWL that the first paragraph of Appendix A sayss it contains. Last sentence refers to "Table xx+1"
Resolution: Replace Annex A, in its entirety with the attached PDF revision. Revisions include:
§ Revised Table 30 to correct meta-level concerns raised in issue 11304
§ New Table 31 to provide library for RDF profile for XML Schema Datatypes
§ New Table 32 representing the missing model library for the OWL profile noted in issue 10840
Revised Text: See new Annex A, ptc/2007-08-25
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/07-08-25.
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10841: RestrictionClass constraint [1]. (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary: RestrictionClass constraint [1]. In 14.2.5.3 RestrictionClass, Constraints. [1], the last word should be "restriction" rather than "constraint".
Resolution: Replace text as indicated.
Revised Text: 1. In Chapter 14, section 14.2.5.3 RestrictionClass, under the heading Constraints, revise the first (only) constraint to read:
[1] (Semantic) Instances of the class are all and only those instances satisfying the restriction.
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10842: Section 8.2 wording (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary: Section 8.2 wording. In Section 8.2 (Why Not Simply Use or Extend the UML 2.0 Metamodel?), next to last paragraph, first sentence, remove "Additionally". The paragraph is about a similarity between UML and OWL, rather than a difference as the earlier paragraphs were.
Resolution: Replace text as indicated.
Revised Text: 1. In Chapter 8, section 8.2 "Why Not Simply Use or Extend the UML 2.0 Metamodel?," next to last paragraph, revise the first sentence to read:
While some claim that UML would need to support properties independently of classes to be used in the OWL style, this is not actually the case.
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Discussion:
Issue 10847: Chapter 16 purpose (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: Chapter 16 purpose. In Chapter 16 (Mapping UML to OWL), first sentence, starting with "in part" says the chapter is trying to justify using ODM rather than UML. This of course is not the point of a comparison, which is to be informative and let readers make their own choices, including the option to use both with mappings.
Resolution: Replace the entire first sentence of 16.1 Introduction as described below.
Revised Text: 1. Replace first sentence with:
This chapter intends to provide an informative comparison between UML and the ontology representation language OWL.
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10852: Classes and properties wording (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: Classes and properties wording. In Section 16.2.1 (UML Kernel), Under Figure 16.1, sixth bullet, the sentence combines optional and mandatory multiplcity (may or may not, one or more). Properties may be optionally owned by a single class, elements cannot be owned by more than one other element
Resolution: Author agreed with the issue. A replacement sentence was drafted leading to the fix below.
Revised Text: Replace the first sentence of the sixth bullet in 16.2.1 which currently reads,
"A property may or may not be owned by one or more classes." with
"A property may or may not be owned by a class."
Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10854: Class = set of instances (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: Class = set of instances. In Section 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), first paragraph, second sentence, an OWL class can exist without insances, so it is not equivalent to a set of instances.
Resolution: The statement was meant to include the empty set. The sentence was slightly revised to make this clearer.
Revised Text: Replace second sentence of 1st para of 16.2.2 which currently reads,
"A class in OWL is a set of instances." with
"A class in OWL is a set of zero or more instances."
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10855: Extents. In Section 16.2.2 (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: Extents. In Section 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), second paragraph, first sentence, the extent is not an M0 object. I think this is trying to say the extent consists of M0 objects.
Resolution: Fix the text to say that the extent consists of M0 objects.
Revised Text: Replace 1st sentence of the 2nd para of 16.2.2 which currently reads,
"In UML the extent of a class is an M0 object consisting of instances." with
"In UML the extent of a class is a set of zero or more instances of M0 objects."
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10856: Modeled instances (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: Modeled instances. In Section 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), second paragraph, parentheical remark, insert "not" before "equivalent". because multiple M0 instances can conform to a single M1 instance specification. It would be good to expand this to say that for the purposes of discussion, instance specification used to explain M0 instances, for example, using the term "slot".
Resolution: Fix the text to correct the statement about instances in a model library.
Revised Text: Replace parenthetical sentence of the 2nd para of 16.2.2 which currently reads
"(Instances may be specified at the M1 level in a model library, but they are equivalent to M0 objects.)" with
"(Instances may be specified at the M1 level in a model library, but they specify possibly several M0 objects.)"
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10857: Table 16.5 (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary: Table 16.5. Table 16.5 (Example Course Instance) has a column "title", which I assume should be "description" to be consistent with the example in the previous section.
Resolution: Fix the table to match the model specified in the earlier section.
Revised Text: Replace heading of third column of Table 16.5 which currently reads "title" with "description" to keep the example consistent with model specified in Table 16.1.
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10858: M0 implementation of a class (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: M0 implementation of a class. In Section 16.2.1 (Class and Property - Basics), paragraph underneath Table 16.5, the first sentence refers to M0 as an implementation, but in these examples, they are only models of instances, not implementations on a particular platform.
Resolution: Replace the word implementation with representation.
Revised Text: Replace first sentence of 3rd para in section 16.2.2 which reads,
"But the M0 implementation of a class is not fully constrained." with
"But the M0 representation of a class is not fully constrained."
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10860: Concretely represented (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: Concretely represented. In Section 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), second paragraph under Figure 16.5, says OWL instances are "concretely represented". What does this mean?
Resolution: Change the text to use less ambiguous wording.
Revised Text: Change the 1st sentence or the 4th paragraph of section 16.2.2 which currently reads,
"In OWL, the extent of a class is a set of individuals, which are concretely represented." to
"In OWL, the extent of a class is a set of individuals identified by URIs."
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10861: UML Thing 1 (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: UML Thing 1. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), second paragraph, starting at "The main difference" overstates the difference. The ODM defines a UML model library that includes Thing, which is not "unusual" or "problematic" in any way. The most that can be fairly said is that UML does not currently standardize its own model library.
Resolution: Remove the text about this being problematic in UML.
Revised Text: Change last sentence of the 4th paragraph of section 16.2.2 which currently reads
"It is of course possible to include a universal class in an M1 model library, but this would be sufficiently unusual to be problematic, whereas the concept is central to OWL." to
"It is of course possible to include a universal class in an M1 model library, but the concept is central to OWL."
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10862: Table 16.6 (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: Table 16.6. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), Table 16.6 (Simple Model Classes Translated to OWL), since the OWL column does not include properties, the owned attribute column can be removed. Or an OWL properties column can be added. It's confusing to have one and not the other.
Resolution: Remove column with heading "Owned attributes" from Table 16.6 since the OWL analog to these attributes were not shown in this table. Note that the UML Owned attributes to owl:Property mapping for these classes is shown in table 16.7 on the next page of the document.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 10868: Page 188 formatting (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary: Page 188 formatting. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), the last few paragraphs on page 188 should be one paragraph.
Resolution: Change the formatting of the text near the bottom of page 188 which begins "The translation from UML to OWL is straightforward" to the end of the page to make this clearly all one paragraph.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 11101: Common Logic Metamodel is out of sync with the ISO FDIS CL specification (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Sandpiper Software, Inc. (Mrs. Elisa F. Kendall, ekendall@sandsoft.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary: Specification: Ontology Definition Metamodel
FormalNumber: ptc/06-10-11
Section: 12
Summary: Common Logic Metamodel is out of sync with the ISO FDIS CL specification.
Description: Minor changes were made to the CL language as it was finalized through the ISO process, which are not reflected in the ODM specification. These include text and diagram / model / xmi changes, which, although minor, should be resynchronized now that the ISO standardization process is complete
Resolution: Revise the CL metamodel and related text as follows. Changes include:
§ Revised reference to the FDIS CL specification
§ Addition of Association CommentedText to and elimination of Association CommentedPhrase from the Phrases Diagram (Figure 12.1)
§ Rename Association ArgumentsForFunctionalTerm to ArgumentSequenceForFunctionalTerm (Figure 12.2)
§ Rename Association ArgumentsForAtomicSentence to ArgumentSequenceForAtomicSentence (Figure 12.3)
§ Rename Association BindingSequence to BindingSequenceForQuantifiedSentence (Figure 12.6) and provide missing paragraph (12.7.1 Binding)
Revised Text: 1. Revise reference in section 3, Normative References, as follows:
[ISO 24707] ISO/IEC FDIS 24707:2007(E) Information technology - Common Logic (CL) - A framework for a family of logic-based languages. Available at http://cl.tamu.edu/.
2. Replace Figure 12.1, page 94, with
2.1 In section 12.2.1 Comment, under Associations, replace the second bullet,
§ commentedPhrase: Phrase [0..1] in association CommentedPhrase - the phrase about which the comment applies
with
§ commentedText: Text [0..1] in association CommentedText - the text about which the comment applies
2.2 In section 12.2.7, Phrase, under Associations, delete the first bullet, namely:
§ commentForPhrase: Comment [0..*] in association CommentedPhrase - optional comment(s) associated with the phrase.
2.3 In section 12.2.9, Text, under Associations, add a new first bullet:
§ commentForText: Comment [0..*] in association CommentedText - optional comment(s) associated with the text.
3. Replace Figure 12.2, page 102, with
3.1 In section 12.3.1 Argument, revise the second bullet under Associations as follows:
§ functionalTerm: FunctionalTerm [0..*] in association ArgumentSequenceForFunctionalTerm - links an argument sequence to a functional term.
3.2 In section 12.3.3 FunctionalTerm, revise the first bullet under Associations as follows:
§ argument: Argument [0..*] in association ArgumentSequenceForFunctionalTerm - links zero or more additional terms (i.e., arguments) to a functional term.
4. Replace Figure 12.3, page 105, with
4.1 In section 12.3.1 Argument, revise the first bullet under Associations as follows:
§ atomicSentence: AtomicSentence [0..*] in association ArgumentSequenceForAtomicSentence - links an argument sequence to an atomic sentence.
4.2 In section 12.4.2 AtomicSentence, revise the first bullet under Associations as follows:
§ argument: Argument [0..*] in association ArgumentSequenceForAtomicSentence - links an argument sequence to the relation that the argument(s) participate in.
5. Replace Figure 12.6, page 114, with
5.1 In section 12.5.10 QuantifiedSentence, revise the second bullet under Associations as follows:
§ binding: Binding [0..*] in association BindingSequenceForQuantifiedSentence - associates zero or more ordered bindings with the expression.
5.2 In section 12.7, insert the following (missing) subsection:
12.7.1 Binding
Description
A quantified sentence has (i) a type, called a quantifier, (ii) a finite, non-repeating sequence of names and sequence markers called the binding sequence, each element of which is called a binding of the quantified sentence, and (iii) a sentence called the body of the quantified sentence. A name or sequence marker which occurs in the binding sequence is said to be bound in the body. Any name or sequence marker which is not bound in the body is said to be free in the body.
Attributes
None
Associations
§ quantifiedSentence: QuantifiedSentence [0..1] in association BindingSequenceForQuantifiedSentence - associates an optional sentence with a binding
§ boundName: Name [0..1] in association BoundName - associates an optional name with a particular binding
§ boundSequenceMarker: SequenceMarker [0..1] in association BoundSequenceMarker - associates an optional sequence marker with a particular binding
Constraints
[1] Name and SequenceMarker form a complete covering of Binding.
context Binding inv DisjointPartition:
(self.oclIsTypeOf(Name) xor self.oclIsTypeOf(SequenceMarker))
Semantics
No additional semantics.
Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
June 13, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 11103: Role name of superClass (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Guo Tong Xie, xieguot@cn.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: In section 10.4.1, the role name of superClass in ClassGeneralization is confusing. It might be changed to subClass
Resolution: During the June 27th telecon, participants agreed that superClass seems synonymous with RDFSsubClassOf, and that it should be changed to superClassOf, for consistency with other naming conventions in the metamodel.
Revised Text: Revised Text:
1. Replace Figure 10.4, page 46, with
2. In the second paragraph of section 10.4.1 under Description, replace "superClass" with "superClassOf", and "subclass" with "subClassOf", as follows:
The term superClassOf is used as the inverse of subClassOf. If a class C' is a superClassOf of a class C, then all instances of C are also instances of C'.
3. Under Associations in section 10.4.1, replace "superClass" with "superClassOf", as follows:
§ superClassOf: RDFSClass [0..*] in association ClassGeneralization - links a class to another class that specializes it (note that superClassOf is not an RDF concept).
Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
June 20, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 11104: Role name of superProperty (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Guo Tong Xie, xieguot@cn.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: In section 10.5.1, the role name of superProperty in PropertyGeneralization is confusing. It might be changed to subProperty
Resolution: During the Jun 27th telecon, participants agreed that superProperty seems synonymous with RDFSsubPropertyOf, and that it should be changed to superPropertyOf, for consistency with other naming conventions in the metamodel.
Revised Text: 1. Replace Figure 10.5, page 49, with
2. Under Associations in section 10.5.1, replace "superProperty" with "superPropertyOf", as follows:
§ superPropertyOf: RDFProperty [0..*] in association PropertyGeneralization - links a property to another property that specializes it (note that superPropertyOf is not an RDFS concept).
Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
June 20, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 11105: Bi-directional URIReferenceForNamespace association (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Guo Tong Xie, xieguot@cn.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: In section 10.7.3, URIReferenceForNamespace should be changed to two uni-directional associations between URIReference and Namespace. In the current model, if two URIReference have the same Namespace, it could not be represented.
Resolution: This issue really identifies the need for two relationships between these classes.
It calls for an additional role that would yield links to all the URIReferences
"contained" in a Namespace. The current association between these two classes is meant to represent URIReferences which identify namespaces, hence the association name URIReferenceForNamespace, while the URIReferences in question would identify elements in an owl ontology or rdfs vocabulary and not Namespaces. As the model stands, there is no easy way to derive this information.
The change to address this involves the addition of a new bi-directional association, URIReferenceInNamespace, between the URIReference and Namespace classes, as shown below.
Revised Text: 1. Replace Figure 10.7, page 55, with
2. Under Associations in section 10.7.6, URIReference (Augmented Definition), add the following additional association:
§ owningNamespace: Namespace [0..1] in association URIReferenceInNamespace - links a URI reference to the namespace that owns it.
3. Also under Associations in section 10.7.6, URIReference (Augmented Definition), within the association description for namespace:Namespace, replace text:
links a URI reference to a namespace.
with
links a URI reference to an optional namespace it identifies.
4. Under Associations in section 10.7.3, Namespace, add the following additional association:
§ uriRefInNamespace: URIReference [0..*] in association URIReferenceInNamespace - links a namespace to the URI reference(s) it owns.
Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
June 20, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 11106: Cardinality of OWLInverseOf (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Guo Tong Xie, xieguot@cn.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: In section 11.4.5, the cardinality of OWLInverseOf in InverseProperty association should be changed from 0..1 to 0..*. One property can have multiple inverse properties
Resolution: In section 11.4.5, the cardinality of OWLInverseOf in InverseProperty association should be changed from 0..1 to 0..*. One property can have multiple inverse properties.
Revised Text: 1. Replace Figure 11.5, page 78, with
2. Replace Figure F.2, page 310, with
Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
June 20, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Issue 11304: The RDF/S and XML Schema library has some metalevel mixups (odm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary: The RDF/S and XML Schema library has some metalevel mixups I think, see
comments. Can discuss, should be easy to fix.b
Resolution: Replace Annex A, in its entirety with the attached PDF revision. Revisions include:
§ Revised Table 30 to correct meta-level concerns raised in issue 11304
§ New Table 31 to provide library for RDF profile for XML Schema Datatypes
§ New Table 32 representing the missing model library for the OWL profile noted in issue 10840
Revised Text: See new Annex A, ptc/2007-08-25
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/07-08-25.
Actions taken:
August 27, 2007: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Discussion: See issue 10840 for disposition