Issue 10849: Figure 16.1 incomplete Jira Issue ODM11-1
Issue 10853: Associations Jira Issue ODM11-2
Issue 10863: Distinct associations, ownedAttribute associations Jira Issue ODM11-3
Issue 10864: Distinct associations, restrictions Jira Issue ODM11-4
Issue 10866: Associations Jira Issue ODM11-5
Issue 10872: Table 16.9 and Naries Jira Issue ODM11-6
Issue 10877: Classes of classes Jira Issue ODM11-7
Issue 10885: Table 16.10 Jira Issue ODM11-8
Issue 10889: Table 16.12, classes as instances Jira Issue ODM11-9
Issue 10891: Inferring subsumption Jira Issue ODM11-10
Issue 10892: Boolean combination Jira Issue ODM11-11
Issue 10893: Names, unique names. Jira Issue ODM11-12
Issue 10905: Multiplicity. Jira Issue ODM11-13
Issue 10906: navigableOwnedEnd Jira Issue ODM11-14
Issue 10908: Individuals, mapping Jira Issue ODM11-15
Issue 10909: complementOf and disjointWith Jira Issue ODM11-16
Issue 10910: Multiple Domains or Ranges for Properties. Jira Issue ODM11-17
Issue 10911: Ontology Properties Jira Issue ODM11-18
Issue 10912: Anonymous Classes Jira Issue ODM11-19
Issue 10914: Constructed Classes Jira Issue ODM11-20
Issue 10916: Range Restriction Restriction Classes Jira Issue ODM11-21
Issue 10917: Properties in OWL Jira Issue ODM11-22
Issue 11099: Constraints in the RDF Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL Jira Issue ODM11-23
Issue 11100: Constraints in the OWL Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL Jira Issue ODM11-24
Issue 11102: Mapping from Common Logic to OWL should be revised Jira Issue ODM11-25
Issue 12400: Examples provided for owl:inverseOf are misleading Jira Issue ODM11-26
Issue 16036: In the CL metamodel the associations Conjunction and Disjunction clash with class names. Jira Issue ODM11-27
Issue 16039: There is a general lack of composition relationships for model management � in both the RDF and OWL metamodels Jira Issue ODM11-28
Issue 16040: Spec is sorely in need of examples showing how to represent common RDF/OWL constructs as instances of metamodel Jira Issue ODM11-29
Issue 16256: Users creating domain ontologies want their models to be user friendly Jira Issue ODM11-30
Issue 16497: Stereotypes should be shown on diagrams in the RDF and OWL profiles Jira Issue ODM11-31
Issue 17338: ODM Metamodel takes a different approach to OWL restrictions from the Profile (and indeed from OWL): Jira Issue ODM11-32
Issue 17424: Provide support for distinguishing asserted vs. inferred axioms Jira Issue ODM11-33
Issue 18863: Stereotypes for RDF Containers and Collections Jira Issue ODM11-34
Issue 19025: ODM does not support internationalized URIs (Chapter 17) Jira Issue ODM11-35
Issue 19026: ODM does not support internationalized URIs (Chapter 16) Jira Issue ODM11-36
Issue 19079: Remove sub-packages of OWL metamodel Jira Issue ODM11-37
Issue 19080: profiles submitted with the RTF report include stereotype definitions that are not in the submitted RTF report itself Jira Issue ODM11-38
Issue 19093: The UML Profile for RDF and OWL still refers to the UML Superstructure Specification Jira Issue ODM11-39
Issue 19099: The section numbers refer to the 1.1 convenience document Jira Issue ODM11-40
Issue 19100: On RDFSResource, groupingNamespace, RDFSLabel, RDFSComment, are not documented Jira Issue ODM11-41
Issue 19101: On Triple (mis-named RDF Triple in the spec), statement, document are not documented Jira Issue ODM11-42
Issue 19102: In 10.6.2 the property �resource� does not seem right Jira Issue ODM11-43
Issue 19103: In 10.6.3, RDFSisDefinedBy should be a subproperty of seeAlso Jira Issue ODM11-44
Issue 19104: In 10.6.3 the constraints should not refer to IRIs but linked objects Jira Issue ODM11-45
Issue 19105: In 10.9.1, Document::xmlBase should be deleted (it�s on Source now) Jira Issue ODM11-46
Issue 19106: In 10.9.4 the attribute namespacePrefix should be just prefix Jira Issue ODM11-47
Issue 19107: In 10.9.7, graphForNG should be just graph Jira Issue ODM11-48
Issue 19108: 10.9.8 does not document bNode Jira Issue ODM11-49
Issue 19109: OWLOntology::owlUniverse is not documented � in fact it�s in 11.7.2 which should be moved Jira Issue ODM11-50
Issue 19110: Question section 11.2.3 RDFSLiteral (Augmented) Jira Issue ODM11-51
Issue 19111: There are still mentions of OWL Full and OWL DL Jira Issue ODM11-52
Issue 19112: Constraint [1] of AnnotationProperty still has URIReference and RDFLLiteral Jira Issue ODM11-53
Issue 19113: OWLOntologyProperty is obsolete Jira Issue ODM11-54
Issue 19114: OWLAllDifferent should specialize ClassExpression not OWLClass Jira Issue ODM11-55
Issue 19115: The subclass stereotype in the RDF profile section needs to be simplified to match the normative xmi model Jira Issue ODM11-56
Issue 19117: The section on changes required to other OMG specs has been made moot by SMOF Jira Issue ODM11-57
Issue 19118: The conformance section of the document needs to be revised to support the new metamodel structure Jira Issue ODM11-58
Issue 19119: The proof of concept section should be revised to discuss support by Thematix/No Magic and Sparx Jira Issue ODM11-59
Issue 19120: Revise the overview section to support the latest changes in the metamodel structure Jira Issue ODM11-60
Issue 19125: Some values of the rdf:esource attribute are incorrect Jira Issue ODM11-61
Issue 19126: Annex mixes UML and OWL terminology Jira Issue ODM11-62
Issue 19138: Annex uses old stereotype name Jira Issue ODM11-63
Issue 19139: Update annotation stereotype in OWL profile Jira Issue ODM11-64
Issue 19140: Conflicting property names for stereotype "statement" Jira Issue ODM11-65
Issue 19168: Class Node should be abstract Jira Issue ODM11-66
Issue 19170: Multiplicity Conflict Jira Issue ODM11-67
Issue 19181: UML class name typo Jira Issue ODM11-68
Issue 19182: Graphical representation of �equivalentClass� conflicts with text Jira Issue ODM11-69
Issue 19183: Incorrect relationship between OWL and RDF packages? Jira Issue ODM11-70
Issue 19279: Typos, grammatical errors, and style issues Jira Issue ODM11-71
Issue 19310: Self Object Property Restrictions are only partially supported in the ODM 1.1 Specification Jira Issue ODM11-72
Issue 19311: Stereotypes associated with Restrictions in the OWL Profile are incompletely defined Jira Issue ODM11-73
Issue 19312: WL2 n-ary datatype hook and universal and existential restriction on n-ary data ranges Jira Issue ODM11-74
Issue 19313: The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 pairwise disjoint and disjoint union classes Jira Issue ODM11-75
Issue 19314: The ODM Metamodel and Profile model libraries should support OWL2 universal and empty object and data properties Jira Issue ODM11-76
Issue 19315: The ODM Metamodel and Profile model libraries should support OWL2 extra built-in datatypes (rational, real) Jira Issue ODM11-77
Issue 19316: The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 inverse object property expressions Jira Issue ODM11-78
Issue 19317: The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 property chains Jira Issue ODM11-79
Issue 19416: Representation of Axioms Jira Issue ODM11-80
Issue 19421: Representation of Axioms Jira Issue ODM11-81
Issue 19630: ODM metamodel needs a Package concept for managing a structure for ontologies Jira Issue ODM11-82
Issue 19656: Issues on ODM 1.1 UML XMI file for RDFLibrary Jira Issue ODM11-83
Issue 10849: Figure 16.1 incomplete (odm-rtf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Dr. 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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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".
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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).
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
Boolean combination. In Section 16.5.1 (Predicate Definition Language), third sentence, UML supports the equivalent of unionOf.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
Multiplicity. Section 16.3.7 (Multiplicity), the translation can also be to OWL FunctionalProperty or InverseFunctionalProperty if the multiplicity is 1.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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).
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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?
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
Ontology Properties. Section 16.4.3.2 (Ontology Properties to Comments) should use dependencies for some of the translations. See the profile (Chapter 14).
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
Anonymous Classes. Section 16.4.4.3 (Anonymous Class to Class) can translate blank nodes to anonymous classes in UML.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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).
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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).
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
The RTF is in the process of revising the metamodels to support RDF 1.1 and OWL 2, and has deferred work on OCL revisions in particular until metamodel revision is complete. Disposition: Deferred
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.
The RTF is in the process of revising the metamodels to support RDF 1.1 and OWL 2, and has deferred work on OCL revisions in particular until metamodel revision is complete. Disposition: Deferred
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.
The RTF has elected to defer until the changes to CL specification have been completed by ISO. Disposition: Deferred
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).
In the CL metamodel the associations Conjunction and Disjunction clash with class names. This is not strictly speaking an error at MOF 2 but can cause difficulty for some implementations. And these do not make good associations names. I propose: ConjoinedSentence and DisjoinedSentence (which will make them consistent with NegatedSentence).
The RTF has elected to defer until the changes to CL specification have been completed by ISO. Disposition: Deferred
There is a general lack of composition relationships for model management � in both the RDF and OWL metamodels
Significant changes to the metamodels have occurred since version 1.0. These changes had a broader scope than composition relationships, Subsequent analysis of the metamodel is anticipated to include composition. Resolutions against specific composition relationships are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
The specification is sorely in need of examples showing how to represent common RDF/OWL constructs as instances of the metamodel. That�s especially the case for use of URIs and IDs; and also for anonymous classes as used in Restrictions and Intersections
The RTF recognizes the importance of providing examples. However, RTF effort for version 1.1 concentrated on revising and improving the metamodels, Given the metamodels� evolving nature during the past year, producing examples was judged risky, as an example construct might soon be out of date. Resolutions against issue 16040 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
Users creating domain ontologies want their models to be user friendly and this requires phrases with spaces and other special characters. The use of �camel case� and other I.T. conventions are not friendly, however OWL has restrictions on the characters that may be used. Potential resolution: ODM should specify the algorithm for mapping a user friendly names in the UML profile to an OWL legal name where required. The user friendly name can and should be used in the OWL label and does not require such mapping. The choice of algorithm can be to eliminate the space and enforce camel case or to substitute underscores for all illegal characters. My preference would be to introduce underscores as these are then easier to reverse map from OWL to UML and are visually similar to spaces.
The RTF agrees that work could be done to augment the current graphical notation in the ODM profiles with short cuts and other user-friendly diagramming options. 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
Stereotypes should be shown on diagrams in an abstract syntax section under each profile, not only in text under each stereotype.
Many new diagrams have been incorporated into the set of resolutions completed for the ODM 1.1 revision. However, the lion�s share of these are in the RDF Profile, with only partial coverage for OWL at this point. As a result, the RTF has determined that this issue should be deferred to the ODM 1.2 revision to complete the process of integrating diagrams that represent all of the stereotypes provided in the profiles. Disposition: Deferred
The ODM Metamodel takes a different approach to OWL restrictions from the Profile (and indeed from OWL): the Profile has a single stereotype Restriction whereas the Metamodel has 6 different subclasses depending on the type of restriction: HasValueRestriction, AllValuesFromRestriction, CardinalityRestriction etc. It would be more consistent if the metamodel had only a single class, though this would necessitate constraints on the properties.
Significant changes to the ODM metamodel have occurred since version 1.0. These changes had a broader scope than restrictions, Subsequent analysis of the metamodel is anticipated to include restrictions. Resolutions against issue 17338 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
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.
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
The current ODM specification is lacking stereotype definitions for containers and collections. The entire section in the profile amounts to one sentence that references an annex. The section should be revised to provide stereotypes for these elements.
Via the resolution to issue 16495, the ODM metamodels and profiles for RDF and OWL were revised to support internationalized URIs (IRIs). Chapter 17, which covers the mapping from Topic Maps to OWL, has not been updated to reflect this modification however. The chapter needs to be updated to be brought in line with these changes.
Chapter 17 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. Chapter 16, another informative section, is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833), with resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 deferred until RTF 1.2 (Issue 19026). A similar course of action will be taken for Chapter 17. Changes will deferred until RTF 1.2, at which time it will be to an informative annex, with resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 17 acted upon in that annex. Disposition: Deferred
Via the resolution to issue 16495, the ODM metamodels and profiles for RDF and OWL were revised to support internationalized URIs (IRIs). Chapter 16, which covers the mapping from UML to OWL, has not been updated to reflect this modification however. The chapter needs to be updated to be brought in line with these changes.
Chapter 16 has always been an informative section of the ODM specification. It is being moved to an informative annex (Issue 18833). Resolutions against the content of what was Chapter 16 are deferred until RTF 1.2. Disposition: Deferred
Remove sub-packages of OWL metamodel With OWL 2 no longer making a distinction between OWL DL and OWL Full it does not make sense to have separate ODM packages for these: there should just be one OWL package/metamodel.
The profiles submitted with the RTF report include stereotype definitions that are not in the submitted RTF report itself. These represent work in progress that the RTF felt should be left in the submitted profiles but that are subject to change/reconciliation in the 1.2 RTF.
Over the last several years since the start of the RTF, significant progress has been made in correcting problems encountered via implementation experience, and through working towards full support for OWL 2. The profiles submitted with the ODM 1.1 RTF report include a combination of support for the set of resolutions adopted for the ODM 1.1 and work in progress towards an ODM 1.2 specification. The RTF team determined that it would be counterproductive to remove the work in progress, but due to the urgent need for an interim version of the specification, to defer finalization of this work to the 1.2 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
References in the profile section need to be revised to reflect UML 2.4.1 / 2.5 documents, and any new references need to be incorporated into chapters 3 and 19.
The section numbers refer to the 1.1 convenience document
On RDFSResource, groupingNamespace, RDFSLabel, RDFSComment, are not documented. Actually the latter are in 10.3.2 which should be moved
On Triple (mis-named RDF Triple in the spec), statement, document are not documented. Actually statement is in 10.4.4 which should be moved.
In 10.6.2 the property �resource� does not seem right
In 10.6.3, RDFSisDefinedBy should be a subproperty of seeAlso
In 10.6.3 the constraints should not refer to IRIs but linked objects
In 10.9.1, Document::xmlBase should be deleted (it�s on Source now)
In 10.9.4 the attribute namespacePrefix should be just prefix
In 10.9.7, graphForNG should be just graph
10.9.8 does not document bNode
OWLOntology::owlUniverse is not documented � in fact it�s in 11.7.2 which should be moved
Question section 11.2.3 RDFSLiteral (Augmented)
There are still mentions of OWL Full and OWL DL
Constraint [1] of AnnotationProperty still has URIReference and RDFLLiteral
OWLOntologyProperty is obsolete
OWLAllDifferent should specialize ClassExpression not OWLClass
The xmi for the RDF profile has been substantially simplified for ODM 1.1, but the section of the RDF profile in the document does not match the xmi. This should be corrected in the 1.2 RTF.
This section describes problems with MOF/UML due to the need to work around multiple classification issues, which was fixed by SMOF. The specification needs to be revised to (1) state that no changes are required to other OMG specs, (2) update references and add SMOF, and (3) add a discussion of the need for SMOF in the design principles section (section 7)
The current conformance section includes requirements that have been made invalid by removal of the RDFWeb package in the metamodel, among other things. The entire section needs a rewrite to reflect changes made for RTF 1.1.
The set of implementations referenced is out of date and should be revised to discuss current implementations.
The diagram (Figure 9.1) and related text is out of date given the revisions made to the ODM metamodels by the 1.1 RTF.
Annex D has several OWL examples that use the rdf:resource attribute in which the attribute's value is, I think, meant to be prefixed with a "#". For example, in Table D-7, <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="Course"/> should be: <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Course"/>
The second sentence of Annex D.2.2 reads as follows: A class in OWL is a set of zero or more instances. An OWL class consists of individuals, not instances. The sentence should be changed to use OWL terminology.
n table A-4, the cell in the second column of row 1 contains the stereotype �rdfsContainerMembershipProperty�. This name has been changed to �containerMembershipProperty� in version 1.1.
Line 87 of the OWL profile (https://www.omg.org/ODM/20130801/OWLProfile.xml) has an element named annotationProperty. This is the v1.0 name. In 1.1 the name is owlAnnotation (cf. Section 14.2.3.1).
Fig. 14.3 shows the first 3 properties of �statement� named RDFsubject, RDFpredicate, and RDFobject. Section 14.1.3.9 lists properties named subject, predicate, and object. The names need to be consistent.
The Description in Section 10.2.2 states that ReferenceNode, BlankNode, and Literal form a complete and disjoint covering of Node. That means Node is an abstract class. For consistency with the �node� stereotype (Section 14.1.3.5), Section 10.2.2 should describe it as such.
The association between Document and Triple in Figure 10.8 shows multiplicity 0..* for the "triple" role. In Section 10.8.1, the association's multiplicity is 1..*.
The "Stereotype and Base Class" section of 14.2.4.3 states that the base class of �owlImports� is UML::PackageImports. The class name is PackageImport (i.e., it doesn't end with "s").
In the GraphicalRepresentation section of owl:equivalentClass, the text says the representation is a dashed line, but Figure 14.41 shows a solid line.
Figure 14.19 shows an association labeled "Imports" between packages OWL and RDF. Should it be a dependency stereotyped �import�? That's what the UML specifications describe.
This is a bulk report of minor problems I've identified in the specification. The following is a CSV-format list that can be read by a spreadsheet application. Page,Location,Problem,Fix 38,"Section 10.2.6, Description, paragraph 1","""RFC3986"" should be ""RFC 3986"", consistent with ""RFC 3987"" in the same paragraph.", 38,"Section 10.2.6, Description, paragraph 2","""RFC3986"" should be ""RFC 3986"".", 38,"Section 10.2.5, Constraints, paragraph 1, sentence 2","""However, in any case"" is redundant.","Replace ""However, in any case,"" with ""However,""." 44,"Section 10.5.2, Semantics, paragraph 2",The sentence beginning on the third line is run-in and the second part is incomplete.,"Change the sentence to ""Such features may in the future be provided to support, for example, more elaborate datatype conditions.""" 50,"Section 10.8, paragraph 1",Replace hyphen with dash in line 3., 50,"Section 10.8, paragraph 1",Missing comma.,"Change ""prefixes and URIs"" to ""prefixes and IRIs,""." 51,Last paragraph,Missing period at end of sentence., 53,"Section 10.8.2, Description, paragraph 1","The article modifying ""IRI"" is incorrect.","Change ""a IRI"" to ""an IRI""." 54,"Section 10.8.2, Constraints",Remove the quotation marks around [XMLNS]., 56,"Section 10.8.8, Associations, bullet 1","Change ""NameSpace"" to ""Namespace"". Missing period at end of sentence.", 73,"Section 11.3.8.1, Description, First paragraph",Missing period at end of last sentence., 77,"Section 11.3.8.9, Constraints, paragraph 1",Missing period at end of sentence., 82,"Section 11.5, title",Replace hyphen with dash., 83,"Section 11.6, paragraph 2",The first sentence is run-in.,"Change ""data values,"" to ""data values:""." 173,"Section 14.2.5, paragraph 1","On the last line, replace ""classes,"" with ""classes"".", 174,"Section 14.2.5.1, Description, paragraph 2, sentence 1",The use of passive voice reduces specificity.,"Change owl:Class is defined as a subclass of rdfs:Class. to [OWL SS&FS] defines owl:Class as a subclass of rdfs:Class." 199,"Section 14.2.6.3, Description, paragraph 1",The first sentence is missing a comma.,"Change ""in the profile"" to ""in the profile,""." 207,"Section 14.2.7.5, Description, paragraph 1","The use of commas in the first sentence decreases readability: it's not immediately obvious how to read ""OWL properties"".","Change ""OWL properties"" to ""OWL, properties""." 207,"Section 14.2.7.5, Stereotype and Base Class, paragraph 1",The first sentence is run-in.,"Change ""No stereotype,"" to ""No stereotype;""."
In ODM 1.1, partial support for hasSelf property restrictions were added to the metamodel and profile for OWL. This support needs to be fully integrated, and at a minimum, an additional stereotype should be provided in the profile.
A number of stereotypes are given in section 14.2.5.3 for dependencies to be used with restrictions are incompletely defined in ODM 1.1.
The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 n-ary datatype hook and universal and existential restriction on n-ary data ranges
Pairwise disjoint classes and disjoint unions are only partially supported in the ODM 1.1. Representation should be completed for both the OWL metamodel and profile.
The OWL 2 top and bottom object and data properties should be represented in the metamodel and profile (possibly as additions to the libraries in Annex A).
These datatypes were added in OWL 2, and should be supported in the metamodel, profile and related libraries.
Inverse property expressions were new in OWL 2 and support for them needs to be added to the ODM specification.
Property chains were added as a feature of OWL 2 and need to be supported in the ODM metamodel and profile.
Representation of Axioms OWL2 uses Axioms to represent several capabilities, whereas ODM has them either as binary associations or not at all. In OWL these axioms are represented as a blank node so should have a metamodel element: that is necessary to allow the statement itself to be associated with an ontology/document. ODM has OWLAllDifferent which inherits from OWLClass which does not make sense. In the metamodel there should be a top level class representing Axiom with the following subclasses: - DifferentIndividuals (replaces association DifferentIndividual and class OWLAllDifferent) - SameIndividual (replaces association SameIndividual) - EquivalentClass (replaces association EquivalentClass) - DisjointClasses (replaces association DisjointClass) - EquivalentProperty(replaces association EquivalentProperty) - DisjointProperties (new)
Representation of Axioms OWL2 uses Axioms to represent several capabilities, whereas ODM has them either as binary associations or not at all. In OWL these axioms are represented as a blank node so should have a metamodel element: that is necessary to allow the statement itself to be associated with an ontology/document. ODM has OWLAllDifferent which inherits from OWLClass which does not make sense. In the metamodel there should be a top level class representing Axiom with the following subclasses: - DifferentIndividuals (replaces association DifferentIndividual and class OWLAllDifferent) - SameIndividual (replaces association SameIndividual) - EquivalentClass (replaces association EquivalentClass) - DisjointClasses (replaces association DisjointClass) - EquivalentProperty(replaces association EquivalentProperty) - DisjointProperties (new)
ODM metamodel needs a Package concept for managing a structure for ontologies, akin to the use of UML Packages in the Profile. In fact, the use of UML Packages in ontology models is outside the documented profile. There is nothing to say, for example, that the package structure should mirror the URI structure and/or whether it matters whether they differ. Despite the fact that the RDF/OWL languages do not have Package, they do make use of folders/directories in wither filestore or on the web. And ontologies like FIBO now have metadata at the package/folder level but neither the metamodel nor the profile provide any place to hang these. Finally packages provide a much-needed scoping mechanism for applying various operations � which become increasingly impractical as the number of leaf-level ontologies has already exceeded 400 for FIBO
I was working on the FIBO UML files and came across some XMI issues with the ODM XMI[PJR] for RDFLibrary: It has an erroneous import of OWLProfile and it uses .xml instead of .xmi for the RDFProfile. Proposed resolution: The lines at 402 of RDFLibrary.xmi are currently: <uml:Package xmi:id="_16_6_1_15100de_1266442802908_497608_344" name="rdf" URI="https://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/RDFLibrary.xmi"> <profileApplication xmi:type="uml:ProfileApplication" xmlns:RDFProfile="http://www.magicdraw.com/schemas/RDFProfile.xmi" xmi:id="_RDFProfile-Application" xmlns:OWLProfile="http://www.magicdraw.com/schemas/OWLProfile.xmi"> <appliedProfile href="https://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/RDFProfile.xml#_12_5_1_137b03ac_1193948135234_354269_2454"/> And should be as follows: <uml:Package xmi:id="_16_6_1_15100de_1266442802908_497608_344" name="rdf" URI="https://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/RDFLibrary.xmi"> <profileApplication xmi:type="uml:ProfileApplication" xmi:id="_RDFProfile-Application"> <appliedProfile href="https://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/RDFProfile.xmi#_12_5_1_137b03ac_1193948135234_354269_2454"/>