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)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 10844: Figure D.3 notation
Issue 10846: Annex D.4 sets
Issue 10849: Figure 16.1 incomplete
Issue 10850: Formal structure
Issue 10853: Associations
Issue 10863: Distinct associations, ownedAttribute associations
Issue 10864: Distinct associations, restrictions
Issue 10865: Identifiers
Issue 10866: Associations
Issue 10867: Subproperites and redefintion
Issue 10871: Association member ends
Issue 10872: Table 16.9 and Naries
Issue 10873: Translation of binary associations.
Issue 10874: UML Thing 2
Issue 10875: Individuals
Issue 10876: Disjoint.
Issue 10877: Classes of classes
Issue 10879: Mandatory properties
Issue 10884: Derivation.
Issue 10885: Table 16.10
Issue 10886: Table 16.11
Issue 10887: Table 16.12, Thing
Issue 10888: Table 16.12, AllValuesFrom
Issue 10889: Table 16.12, classes as instances
Issue 10890: Table 16.12, disjoint
Issue 10891: Inferring subsumption
Issue 10892: Boolean combination
Issue 10893: Names, unique names.
Issue 10894: Names, UML namespaces
Issue 10895: Other OWL
Issue 10897: Complex Objects
Issue 10898: Keywords
Issue 10899: Profiles
Issue 10900: UML to OWL, OWL-DL
Issue 10901: UML to OWL, Table 16.10
Issue 10902: Object identification in UML
Issue 10904: N-aries. Section 16.3.6
Issue 10905: Multiplicity.
Issue 10906: navigableOwnedEnd
Issue 10907: Enumeration literals
Issue 10908: Individuals, mapping
Issue 10909: complementOf and disjointWith
Issue 10910: Multiple Domains or Ranges for Properties.
Issue 10911: Ontology Properties
Issue 10912: Anonymous Classes
Issue 10913: Universal Superclass
Issue 10914: Constructed Classes
Issue 10915: Range Restriction Restriction Classes
Issue 10916: Range Restriction Restriction Classes
Issue 10917: Properties in OWL
Issue 11099: Constraints in the RDF Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL
Issue 11100: Constraints in the OWL Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL
Issue 11102: Mapping from Common Logic to OWL should be revised
Issue 11320: Thing in the Profile
Issue 11321: RDFSContainer-MembershipProperty
Issue 12390: Specification: RDFSComment optional representation as plain literal
Issue 12394: OWL Model Library elements are missing owl:versionInfo attributes
Issue 12399: Text describing owl:someValuesFrom and owl:hasValue limits implementations
Issue 12400: Examples provided for owl:inverseOf are misleading
Issue 12563: UML Profile for RDF and OWL, Section 14.2.5

Issue 10844: Figure D.3 notation (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Figure D.3 notation. In Annex D, in Figure D.2, the instance names should be underlined. Some of the association end names are so far from the ends of the lines that it's hard to tell which they are referring to.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved. deferred

Issue 10846: Annex D.4 sets (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Annex D.4 sets. Annex D.4, under Figure D.4 should have another constraint that prevents two instances of NAryProperty from having the same values for the properties of the Nary. Otherwise, it could represent a bag of property values, which OWL properties cannot

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10849: Figure 16.1 incomplete (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Figure 16.1 incomplete. Figure 16.1 (Key Aspects of UML Class Diagram) is missing the multiplicities on general/specific, and the subsetting between ownedEnd and memberEnd.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10850: Formal structure (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Formal structure. Under Figure 16.1, the first sentence refers to "formal structure". Should explain what this is. Is it the metamodel?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10853: Associations (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Associations. In Section 16.2.1 (UML Kernel), the discussion around Tables 16.2 through 16.4 seems to be about relational implementations, rather than UML modeling in the sense that is important to OWL. My suggestion is to replace Tables 16.3 and 16.4 with the tabular forms of the metamodel, as in 16.2. The paragraph above Table 16.3, first sentence, modeling associations does not depend on the implementation of classes (the "implementation" usually refers to how the model is translated to a platform). Same comment on the second sentence, which says Table 16.2 is an implementation, when it is only a tabular form of the metamodel. The second sentence refers to the disjoint union of attributes, but there's nothing like this in UML.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10863: Distinct associations, ownedAttribute associations (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Distinct associations, ownedAttribute associations. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), in the paragraph below Table 16.6, there is the sentence " Note that UML ownedAttribute M2 associations are distinct, even if ownedAttributes have the same name associated with different classes." What are "M2 owned attribute associations"? In the case of M1 properties, properties with the same name may be on different classes, but if they inherit from the same base class where a property of that name is introduced, then they are the same property from OWL's point of view. There is usually no no need to translate to unique OWL properties, just restrictions. See next issue.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10864: Distinct associations, restrictions (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Distinct associations, restrictions. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), in the paragraph above Table 16.7, says the OWL properties "arising" (I assume due to translation) from a UML model are distinct, that OWL restrictions aren't in the translation. UML can redefine properties in subtypes of the classes where the property is introduced, which is equivalent to restriction. The method employed in the chapter is not adequate.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10865: Identifiers (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Identifiers. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), in the paragraph below Table 16.7, the first sentence says the translation assumes that a single name dentifies each instance of the class. It isn't necessary to assume this, since UML does not assume a relational semantics. The notion of identity is primitive in UML and applies even to instances of classes that have no attributes or attribute values. The rest of the paragraph may apply to relational implementations, but is not a general solution. It also assumes that the property names of classes are always different, but distinct classes can have the same properties in UML. (BTW, fourth sentence, "values" -> "names")

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10866: Associations (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Associations. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), in the paragraph below Table 16.7, gives the wrong translation to OWL for UML associations. UML associations have properties at end, and these are often navigable. Binary associations in UML translate to two inverse properties, using these property names, not the association name. See the UML profile for OWL for the translation options for associations, and the third paragraph in 16.2.3.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10867: Subproperites and redefintion (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Subproperites and redefintion. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), in the paragraph below Table 16.8, the second sentence, in parentheses, says that subproperties translate to redefinition. The translation is only to subsetting. Also the wording in parenthetical remark conflates association generalization with property subsetting. Same comment about the last sentence of this paragraph, which omits property subsetting. Same comment about the translation given in the next paragraph. UML associations, even binary ones, can have more than one property, and each property can be subsetted if the associaton as a whole is specialized, but they don't all need to be.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10871: Association member ends (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Association member ends. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), third paragraph under Figure 16.3 describes UML member ends incorrectly. The second sentence says that the classes Staff and Enrolled are member ends, but member ends are classes, not properties.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10872: Table 16.9 and Naries (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Table 16.9 and Naries. In 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics), Table 16.9 replace the "Parts" header with "Properties". The Reification property isn't necessary, because AssociationClass is both a class and association, there is no separate reification of the association (this is necessary in OWL DL, however, and even in OWL Full, some extension is needed for a subclass of Property and Class to correspond to a UML Association Class). The text below the table uses the term "implements" which doesn't apply (these are platform-dependent models), and introduces the reified association, which doesn't exist in UML.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10873: Translation of binary associations. (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Translation of binary associations. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), third paragraph, next to last sentence, the domain of the OWL property is the class at the non-navigable end. This is because the ends of associations in UML are placed opposite the class they navigate from.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10874: UML Thing 2 (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
UML Thing 2. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), fourth paragraph, last sentence, it's clear what the tool sets would do with it: provide Thing for modelers to explicitly assign as the end of a class, and use it as the default end class when none is given.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10875: Individuals (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Individuals. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), fifth paragraph, the first sentence draws a conclucions ("therefore") without any justification. Individuals in OWL are all classified by Thing, whether or not this is explicityly recorded. It's just syntactic sugar to omit it. In UML, instance specifications can be classified by Thing in the model library and have the same semantics as OWL individual.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10876: Disjoint. (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Disjoint. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), sixth paragraph, parenthetical remark should note that with UML Thing the same is true in UML).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10877: Classes of classes (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Classes of classes. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), seventh paragraph, the second sentence implies classes are not instances in OWL DL, but even in DL, OWL Class is a class of classes, by definition. For example, an ontology of animals might have the class Dog, which is an instance (of OWL Class) and a class (of Fido, Rover, and other individual dogs). Ther third sentence should be moved to be the second, and start with "however"|, because it is an exception to the first sentence. After "declaration" should be replaced wtih "a common superclass".

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10879: Mandatory properties (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Mandatory properties. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), under the XML example, third paragraph, I assume "may not" should be "must". The property must have values for every individual

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10884: Derivation. (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Derivation. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), under the XML example, the paragraph starting "UML allows a property", UML derivation means derivation from values of properties, not from generalizations of the classes that are the domain of those properties.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10885: Table 16.10 (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Table 16.10. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.10, the names of classes are capitalized in UML. The UML element corresponding to OWL subproperty is property subsetting. N-aries and association classes are not well-supported in OWL, so don't belong in a table of common features (see other issues on n-aries and association classes).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10886: Table 16.11 (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Table 16.11. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.11, the last row (classes as instances), is supported in OWL Full, and even in DL (OWL Class is a class of classes, by definition). For example, an ontology of animals might have the class Dog, which is an instance (of OWL Class) and a class (of Fido, Rover, and other individual dogs). This table should be in Section 16.6 (In UML but not OWL).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10887: Table 16.12, Thing (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Table 16.12, Thing. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.12, the frst row (Thing) should be qualified by the fact that OWL is using syntactic sugar for global properties and autonomous individuals, and that the standazrd UML model library given in ODM enables UML to support these features. This table should be in Section 16.5 (OWL but not UML).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10888: Table 16.12, AllValuesFrom (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Table 16.12, AllValuesFrom. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.12, the second row (AllValuesFrom), AllValuesFrom is directly supported in UML as property subsetting.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10889: Table 16.12, classes as instances (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Table 16.12, classes as instances. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.12, class as instances appears in both this table and Table 16.11.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10890: Table 16.12, disjoint (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Table 16.12, disjoint. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.12, last row. UML supports declaring disjoint classes.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10891: Inferring subsumption (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Inferring subsumption. In Section 16.5.1 (Predicate Definition Language), first sentence, UML can support subsumption reasoning also, see http://www.inf.unibz.it/~calvanese/papers-html/AIJ-2005.html

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10892: Boolean combination (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Boolean combination. In Section 16.5.1 (Predicate Definition Language), third sentence, UML supports the equivalent of unionOf.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10893: Names, unique names. (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Names, unique names. In Section 16.5.2 (Names), the first two paragraph implies UML assumes unqiue names. M1 instance specifications in UML can have different names, but refer to the same M0 individual. They can also have the same name and refer to different M0 individuals. The third paragraph implies UML does not have name management (given the title of Section 16.5), which of course it does in namespaces.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10894: Names, UML namespaces (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Names, UML namespaces. In Section 16.5.2 (Names), next to last paragraph, namespaces are supported at all metalevels in UML/MOF.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10895: Other OWL (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Other OWL. In Section 16.5.3 (Other OWL Developments), should refer to OWL 1.1.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10897: Complex Objects (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Complex Objects. In Section 16.6.2 (Complex Objects), the first two paragraph and the last omit the critical aspect of connectors, that they provide a model of the interconnections of objects that are all related to the same other obejct. For example, the engine in a car powers the wheels and is controlled by the driver. See http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_11/column5

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10898: Keywords (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Keywords. In Section 16.6.4 (Keywords) keywords are confused with stereotypes. Keywords don't extend, stereotypes do. Keywords are just an element of notation.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10899: Profiles (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Profiles. In Section 16.6.5 (Profiles), third paragraph says that profiles not necessary because of metalevel separation. They are used as an alternative way to extend M2 classes with subclasses, in particular, where the subclases are defined at M1, even though they have the effect of being at M2.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10900: UML to OWL, OWL-DL (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
UML to OWL, OWL-DL. Section 16.3 (UML to OWL), third sentence, says the mapping is only to OWL-DL. Why not OWL Full?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10901: UML to OWL, Table 16.10 (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
UML to OWL, Table 16.10. Section 16.3 (UML to OWL), third paragraph, first sentence, says the mapping is based on Table 16.10. The section containing that table has alot of errors about UML. It would be better to base the mapping on the profile (Chapter 14), which has had muct more review from the UML perspective

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10902: Object identification in UML (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Object identification in UML. Section 16.3.1 (Naming Issues), second paragraph says UML (packageable) elements are identified by name. UML packageable elements can be anonymous, and they still have identity. The notion of identity is primitive in UML and applies even when no names are used.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10904: N-aries. Section 16.3.6 (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
N-aries. Section 16.3.6 (Association Classes and N-ary Associations), second paragraph, says the translation treats association classes and naries the same way. Association classes are not the same as n-aries, see issues filed on n-ries in 16.2.2 (Class and Property - Basics).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10905: Multiplicity. (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Multiplicity. Section 16.3.7 (Multiplicity), the translation can also be to OWL FunctionalProperty or InverseFunctionalProperty if the multiplicity is 1.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10906: navigableOwnedEnd (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
navigableOwnedEnd. The introduction to Section 16.3.5 (Binary Association To Object Property) accounts for navigableOwnedEnd, but the introduction to Section 16.3.8 () Association Generalization) does not.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10907: Enumeration literals (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Enumeration literals. The introduction to Section 16.3.4 (Attribute to Property) accounts for enumeration literals that are instances of classifiers, but the introduction to Section 16.3.9 (Enumeration) does not.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10908: Individuals, mapping (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Individuals, mapping. Section 16.4.1.1 (Mapping for Individuals), first sentence says the profile (Chapter 14) represents individuals as a singleton class. This is incorrect. The profile models individuals as instance specifications. To give property values to the individual, the profile uses a singleton class. Section 16.4.1.1 incorrectly concludes that individuals should not be mapped, which affects 16.4.1.2 (Mapping for Enumerated Classes) and Section 16.4.13 (Annotation Properties to Comments).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10909: complementOf and disjointWith (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
complementOf and disjointWith. Section 16.4.1.3 (Mapping for complementOf and disjointWith) says UML has constructions for complementOf and disjointWith in the PowerTypes pacakge. It actually has constructs for unionOf and disjointWith. Section 16.4.1.3 says no mapping is given because the OWL constructs are pairwise, but OWL unionOf and disjointWith are not pairwise, they can apply to any number of classes.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10910: Multiple Domains or Ranges for Properties. (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Multiple Domains or Ranges for Properties. Section 16.4.1.4 (Multiple Domains or Ranges for Properties) says that multiple domains or ranges for properties is equivalent to the intersection of the domains and ranges. UML properties have at most one type, and intersection can't be represented in UML without the profile (Chapter 14). How is this translated?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10911: Ontology Properties (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Ontology Properties. Section 16.4.3.2 (Ontology Properties to Comments) should use dependencies for some of the translations. See the profile (Chapter 14).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10912: Anonymous Classes (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Anonymous Classes. Section 16.4.4.3 (Anonymous Class to Class) can translate blank nodes to anonymous classes in UML.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10913: Universal Superclass (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary: 
Universal Superclass. Section 16.4.5.2 (Universal Superclass) should also refer to Annex A.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10914: Constructed Classes (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Constructed Classes. The introduction to Section 16.4.6 (Constructed Classes) refers to OWL "difference". I assume this is supposed to be complementOf. The introduction to the section says intersection can be mapped to subclass relationships, but this isn't true, at least not without the profile, see intersection in Chapter 14. It also says union can be translated to subclass relationships, but doesn't mention UML generalization sets and isCovering, see Section 16.3.10 (Powertypes).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10915: Range Restriction Restriction Classes (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Range Restriction Restriction Classes. The introduction to Section 16.4.8 (Range Restriction Restriction Classes) refers to properties "behaving". Properties are static, they don't "behave".

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10916: Range Restriction Restriction Classes (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Range Restriction Restriction Classes. The introduction to Section 16.4.8 (Range Restriction Restriction Classes) says the translation is to a comments. But AllValuesFrom translates directly to redefinition of property types, see the profile (Chapter 14).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 10917: Properties in OWL (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary: 
Properties in OWL. The end of Section 16.4.9 (Properties in OWL) refers to multiple domains be ing equivalent to the domain being an intersection. This does not translate to UML, see issue on Constructed Classes

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 30, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 11099: Constraints in the RDF Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mrs. Elisa F. Kendall, ekendall(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary: 
Summary: Constraints in the RDF Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL.

Description:  Text based descriptions of constraints provided in chapter 10 with the RDF metamodel should be specified in OCL.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 13, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 11100: Constraints in the OWL Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mrs. Elisa F. Kendall, ekendall(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary: 
Summary: Constraints in the OWL Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL.


Description:  Text based descriptions of constraints provided in chapter 11 with the OWL metamodel should be specified in OCL.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 13, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 11102: Mapping from Common Logic to OWL should be revised (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mrs. Elisa F. Kendall, ekendall(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary: 
Specification:  Ontology Definition Metamodel
FormalNumber: ptc/06-10-11
Section: 18
Summary: The mapping from RDFS and OWL to CL should be revised to reflect metamodel changes in CL due to finalization of ISO 24707.


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 changes also need to be reflected in the mapping (embedding) description contained in chapter 18.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 13, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
FTF resources were scarce and priority was given to issues against normative sections, hence many issues such as this were left unresolved.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 11320: Thing in the Profile (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
Thing in the Profile. The UML Profile (Chapter 16) should use Annex A Thing instead of an anonymous class to model owl:Thing. Search on "Thing" (case sensitive) in the profile.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 29, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
We addressed the most urgent profile issues.  We would expect this to be among those addressed first in RTF. Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 11321: RDFSContainer-MembershipProperty (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
In Annex A, RDFSContainer-MembershipProperty should be moved to the UML Profile chapter as a stereotype based on UML:Property.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 29, 2007: received issue

Discussion: 
We addressed the most urgent profile issues.  We would expect this to be among those addressed first in RTF.

Disposition:	Deferred to RTF

Issue 12390: Specification: RDFSComment optional representation as plain literal (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mrs. Elisa F. Kendall, ekendall(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary: 
RDFSComment - (from ODM FTF2 meeting minutes of February 6, 2008), vendors need the ability to include language tags for comments and thus optionally, would like to represent this as an RDF plain literal, rather than UML comment (or potentially an UML opaque expression, which does permit a language tag)

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 17, 2008: received issue

Issue 12394: OWL Model Library elements are missing owl:versionInfo attributes (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mrs. Elisa F. Kendall, ekendall(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary: 
From minutes of the ODM FTF 2 telecon held February 20, 2008: owl:versionInfo -- currently in the profile there is no stereotype for this. In attempting to implement this, we can add versionInfo to stereotypes, but not to elements in the model library for which there are no stereotypes. So -- what is the mechanism for adding versionInfo to elements in the model library? Decision is to make versionInfo an attribute on model library elements.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 17, 2008: received issue

Issue 12399: Text describing owl:someValuesFrom and owl:hasValue limits implementations (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
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 14.2.5.6 The second paragraph appears to imply OWL DL. In OWL full, a class can be a value. This is an oversight: the description needs to be revised to include class in the case of OWL Full.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 17, 2008: received issue

Issue 12400: Examples provided for owl:inverseOf are misleading (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
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

Issue 12563: UML Profile for RDF and OWL, Section 14.2.5 (odm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mrs. Elisa F. Kendall, ekendall(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: 
The current method for specifying OWL restrictions (e.g., owl:allValuesFrom, owl:someValuesFrom, owl:hasValue) in the profile does not provide a means to differentiate, on a diagram, between the restriction types. Further, it does not create the proper "necessary and sufficient" or "necessary" relationships between the class to which the restriction applies and the anonymous class specified by the restriction.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 10, 2008: received issue