1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Distributed Ontology, Modeling, and Specification language (DOL) 1.0 Finalization Task Force

All Issues

  • All Issues
  • Name: dol-ftf
  • Issues Count: 52

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
DOL-101 Cleanup of encoding and markups DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-102 Improvement of definitions and comments in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-98 update the copyright to 2017 DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-20 The DOL ontology should be documented properly in the specification DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-96 Don't include version number of cited standard unless it is required. DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-92 missing parenthesis in the concrete grammar DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-94 BasicOMS may need to be included in delimiters DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-90 minimize can be used to express reachability models DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-82 change terminology from "model" to "realisation" DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-68 The label for supportsLogic in the ontology is duplicated. DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-81 Minor bugs in the translation from OWL to FOL DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-41 Replace "view" by "refinement" DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-43 typo DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-39 Annex references to metaclasses DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-40 Inaccurate footnote 35 DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-37 Simple typos and grammatical errors DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-38 Colon inconsistency DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-35 The definition of union is misleading DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-36 transformation tool conformance insufficient DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-34 The concept "sequence of correspondences" is defined but not used DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-33 The definition of DOLLibrary does not match its specification in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-30 The definition of simple theoroidal mapping is misleading DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-31 Definitions in the ontology do not match those in the document DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-32 Basic definitions are missing from the DOL ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-29 There is a need for the concept of a mapping that is not a logic mapping DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-28 The concepts Reduction and Translation are lacking in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-27 The DOL ontology definition of logical theory needs work DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-26 The definition for Logic in the DOL ontology is limited to monotonic logic only and should be broader DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-25 The text definition for Institution is incomplete DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-24 Documentation is missing in the DOL ontology for the meaning of HeterogeneousEnvironment DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-22 Language graphs should not be limited to translations DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-23 Nodes and edges are not well defined DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-21 IRIs in the "global environment" are overly constrained DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-19 Definition of dol:Language needs clarification DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-17 Clarify the definition of dol:LogicMapping in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-18 Revise/clarify the definition and related notes for dol:LogicReduction in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-15 Clarify the definition of dol:OMSLanguageTranslation DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-16 Missing definition for dol:OMSLanguageReduction DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-14 There are redundant axioms for LogicTranslation and LogicReduction DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-13 Redundant declaration of dol:OMSLanguageTranslation in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-12 There are multiple definitions for dol:OMSLanguageTranslation in the ontology which should be clarified and distilled to a single definition DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-11 Need to clarify the use of "text" in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-8 The text definition of dol:Mapping does not agree with the way the class is specified. DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-9 Need to clarify what is meant by a "construct" in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-10 Need to clarify the role of logical symbols in the ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-6 Need for intermediate class to disambiguate OWL 2 profiles DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-7 Missing concept for Symbol in the DOL ontology DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-4 Elements described as "logical theories" are not defined as such DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-5 Potential misclassification of several classes DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-2 The definition of dol:AbstractSyntax implies that it should be a subclass of dol:Language DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-3 Typo in the definition of the dol:Ontology class DOL 1.0b1 open
DOL-1 The name of the OMS language graph class in the ontology does not match its label DOL 1.0b1 open

Issues Descriptions

Cleanup of encoding and markups

  • Key: DOL-101
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    Because of its original source, many of the definitions and comments contain Latex markup and symbols that are not properly encoded. This needs to be cleaned up.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:27 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 05:44 GMT

Improvement of definitions and comments in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-102
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    (1) when possible rephrase definitions in order to improve ISO 704 compliance,
    (2) replace rdf:comment with skos:definition where appropriate,
    (3) when appropriate spit definitions into a definition and related explanatory note,
    (4) revise some comments as more specifically usage notes
    (5) change the label “model” to “realization” in order to avoid potential confusion of “model” in the logic sense and “model” in the engineering sense
    (6) address formatting issues

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:30 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 05:44 GMT
  • Attachments:

update the copyright to 2017

  • Key: DOL-98
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    change the copyright information on page i (directly after title page) from
    Copyright ©2014-15
    to
    Copyright ©2014-17

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:41 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 04:22 GMT

The DOL ontology should be documented properly in the specification

  • Key: DOL-20
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    While aspects of the ontology are incorporated in definitions in the body of the specification, the ontology itself should be documented via ODM-compliant diagrams, and both ODM/UML XMI and ODM XMI forms for the ontology should be included as deliverables with the specification.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:37 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 04:22 GMT

Don't include version number of cited standard unless it is required.

  • Key: DOL-96
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    Cite the versionless reference and URL of standards. This will always refer to the lastest released version. Only in cases where we definitely rely on a specific version, we should cite that one.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:18 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:48 GMT
  • Attachments:

missing parenthesis in the concrete grammar

  • Key: DOL-92
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    Because of an error in a Latex declaration, some parentheses aren't visible in the abstract grammar. These omissions change the grammar in unintended ways. This bug affects EBNF grammar expression across chapter 9 and in annex K.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:14 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:48 GMT
  • Attachments:

BasicOMS may need to be included in delimiters

  • Key: DOL-94
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    We have
    OMS = ... | OMS OMSTranslation | ...
    OMSTranslation = ... | ’with’ LanguageTranslation+

    Assuming our OMS language contains an opitonal syntax element 'with' IRI, we could have something like

    ontology foo =
    ...
    with <www.example.com>

    this would be ambiguous, since it would not be clear whether the "with <www.example.com>" would be part of the basic OMS or not.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:50 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:48 GMT
  • Attachments:

minimize can be used to express reachability models

  • Key: DOL-90
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    If applied to algebraic signatures (sorts + operation symbols), minimize can be used to express reachability (i.e. term-generatedness) of first-order models. This should be clarified in the standard.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:22 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:48 GMT
  • Attachments:

change terminology from "model" to "realisation"

  • Key: DOL-82
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    Across the DOL spec "model" is used both for models in the UML sense and models in the mathematical model theory sense. This can lead to confusion. Better replace "model" in the mathematical sense by "realisation"

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:56 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The label for supportsLogic in the ontology is duplicated.

  • Key: DOL-68
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    The label for supportsLogic in the ontology is duplicated.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:16 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Minor bugs in the translation from OWL to FOL

  • Key: DOL-81
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    I.5.7.2 Translation of sentences: $\top$ and $\bot$ are missing!
    I.5.7.3 Translation of models:

    $M'_\Thing$ does not make sense, because this is unsorted first-order logic.
    $\I$ has not been introduced. Sometimes, $I$ is used.
    Typo: By Induction (should be: by induction).
    As last item, add: The other cases are similar.
    The satisfaction condition holds as well. --> The satisfaction condition now follows easily.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:31 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Replace "view" by "refinement"

  • Key: DOL-41
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    Replace "view" by "refinement" in example 7.11 on page 37

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:08 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

typo

  • Key: DOL-43
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg ( Fabian Neuhaus)
  • Summary:

    typo on page 53
    satifsiable -> satisfiable

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 31 May 2017 18:38 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

Annex references to metaclasses

  • Key: DOL-39
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    C.2 refers to “the metaclass OWL Ontology” and “the metaclass OWL Universe”. Presumably these refer to the classes OWLOntology and OWLUniverse from ODM; if so they should be spelt correctly (no space) and there should be a reference to NR24.

    D.2 refers to the metaclasses Text and Sentence. It is not clear where these come from. Are they from an existing standard? – if so it should be referenced. Or if they are from a hypothetical metamodel inferred from the Common Logic definition, this should be made explicit.

    E.2 refers to the metaclasses Document and Triple. Are these from ODM? If so there should be a reference fo NR24.

    F.2 refers to the metaclasses OWL Model and OWL PackageableElement. Presumably the reference to OWL is an error, and the metaclasses are actually Model and PackageableElement from the UML metamodel – reference NR8. Also it would be more flexible to make Package rather than Model a subclass of NativeDocument: it’s valid for a UML document to contain a top-level Package which is not a Model and it seems a shame to exclude such a thing from the world of DOL.

    G.2 refers to the metaclasses TPTP_file and annotated_formula. It is not clear where these come from. Are they from an existing standard? – if so it should be referenced. Or if they are from a hypothetical metamodel inferred from the TPTP definition, this should be made explicit.

    H.2 refers to the metaclasses LIBRARY and BASIC-SPEC. It is not clear where these come from. Are they from an existing standard? – if so it should be referenced. Or if they are from a hypothetical metamodel inferred from the CASL definition, this should be made explicit.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:52 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Inaccurate footnote 35

  • Key: DOL-40
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    Footnote 35 says "there does not seem to be default in UML 2.5". This is incorrect. UML 2.5 specifies the defaults in the Classifier description of MultiplicityElement thus:

    isOrdered : Boolean [1..1] = false

    isUnique : Boolean [1..1] = true

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:31 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

Simple typos and grammatical errors

  • Key: DOL-37
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    P11: shard -> shared

    P25: “Annex M provides of DOL texts, which provide examples for all DOL constructs,” clumsy. Reword “Annex M provides textual examples for all DOL constructs,”

    P25: The bibliography contains Q references -> delete Q

    P31: “Often is useful” -> “Often it is useful”

    P35: “in this context are ask” -> “in this context ask”

    P62: Table 2 should be positioned in 9.8.1.2, not in the middle of 9.8.1.1.

    P125: “many-sorted first has been formalized” -> “many-sorted first-order logic has been formalized”

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:48 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

Colon inconsistency

  • Key: DOL-38
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    P28. The textual example illustrating section 7.2 contains two inconsistent language lang:CommonLogic terms, one of which is followed by a colon while the other is not.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:49 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The definition of union is misleading

  • Key: DOL-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In the DOL ontology, dol:Union is defined in terms of the combination of all ..., and then refers to a sequence of OMS. Is the sequence order actually relevant? If not, would it be better to define this through a set of OMS rather than a sequence?

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:28 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

transformation tool conformance insufficient

  • Key: DOL-36
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    It says “a transformation tool is DOL-conformant if it implements one (or more) language translations, logic translations, language projections and/or logic projections.” There must surely also be some DOL-related requirement here, e.g. that the tool consumes and produces DOL-conforming documents.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:45 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The concept "sequence of correspondences" is defined but not used

  • Key: DOL-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In the DOL ontology, dol:SequenceOfCorrespondences doesn't appear to be used for anything. Consider deleting.

    (Note that any deletions must be done prior to moving into RTF – at that stage in the specification one cannot delete or rename concepts or properties - you would need to deprecate them instead, so that your user community is not negatively impacted.)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:26 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The definition of DOLLibrary does not match its specification in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    DOLLibrary is formalized as "semanticallyDenotes some GlobalEnvironment", but this doesn't seem to arise from the natural language definition.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:24 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The definition of simple theoroidal mapping is misleading

  • Key: DOL-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    SimpleTheoroidalMapping: The definition seems to suggest that this is not a LogicMapping (the natural language definition says it maps signatures to logical theories, while a LogicMapping maps logics to logics). The definition in the document of simple theoroidal logic translation is much clearer. There is a disconnect because only simple theoroidal logic translation is defined in the document, while SimpleTheoroidalMapping as defined in the ontology is more general.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:17 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Definitions in the ontology do not match those in the document

  • Key: DOL-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Generally, there seem to be a number of concepts where the definition in the ontology diverges from the one given in the specification document. Some concepts defined in the document do not appear in the ontology, e.g. infrastructure axiom (which is referred to e.g. in the natural language definition of SimpleTheoroidalMapping). Ideally, and especially for use in other OMG specifications such as API4KP, the ontology should be able to stand alone.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:18 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Basic definitions are missing from the DOL ontology

  • Key: DOL-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    On page 4 of the specification document, it states that " DOL is capable of assigning identifiers to entities (symbols, axioms, modules, etc.)." Based on this, we expect to find classes for symbol, axiom and module in the ontology. Is AxiomSentence the same as "axiom"? Definitions for some of these concepts appear to be missing from the ontology, in other words.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:22 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

There is a need for the concept of a mapping that is not a logic mapping

  • Key: DOL-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Currently in the DOL ontology, DefaultMapping is defined as a subclass of LogicMapping. There might be a need for DefaultLanguageMappings, so it would be better to rename this class to DefaultLogicMapping and have a superclass named DefaultMapping (especially the fact that the document speaks of default language translations hints to the existence of a default language mapping).

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:15 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The concepts Reduction and Translation are lacking in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In the ontology, classes for Reduction and Translation (as subclasses of Mapping) would be useful (and then define logic and language reduction and translation using them).

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:11 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The DOL ontology definition of logical theory needs work

  • Key: DOL-27
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In the DOL ontology for LogicalTheory: The natural language definition is kind of awkward: "a signature together with a set of sentences" would be more appropriate.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:09 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The definition for Logic in the DOL ontology is limited to monotonic logic only and should be broader

  • Key: DOL-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Logic: the definition seems to be appropriate for monotonic logic only. That is, the satisfaction relation is defined for sentences, and then it appears to be assumed that satisfaction of a theory is based on satisfaction of all sentences in the theory. This would not be enough for, e.g. defeasible logic. So perhaps the name of this concept should be changed to MonotonicLogic, so if can be reused in external ontologies that also cover nonmonotonic logics.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:07 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The text definition for Institution is incomplete

  • Key: DOL-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In the DOL ontology, the natural language (text) definition for the Institution class is incomplete, and should incorporate the definition provided by the defining axioms of the class.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:06 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Documentation is missing in the DOL ontology for the meaning of HeterogeneousEnvironment

  • Key: DOL-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    HeterogeneousEnvironment: the notes from the document should also be added to the ontology class.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:04 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Language graphs should not be limited to translations

  • Key: DOL-22
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In the DOL ontology, LanguageGraph: edges seem to be limited to language translations - why not e.g. language reductions?

    The definition of OMSLanguageTranslation suggests that a language mapping can be either a translation or a reduction.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:01 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Nodes and edges are not well defined

  • Key: DOL-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In the DOL ontology, LanguageGraph and LogicGraph: Explicitly state what the nodes and what the edges are

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:02 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

IRIs in the "global environment" are overly constrained

  • Key: DOL-21
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In the DOL ontology, IRIs seem to be restricted to document identifiers, networks and mappings, and the meaning of global knowledge remains unexplained.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Definition of dol:Language needs clarification

  • Key: DOL-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The definition of dol:Language as "collection of expressions" where dol:Expression is "a finite combination of symbols that are well-formed according to applicable rules (depending on the language)" suggests that this class does not include natural languages, only formal languages. This is supported by its usage in the definition of dol:FormalSemantics? To avoid confusion, could this concept be renamed to dol:FormalLanguage (if that is the intent)?

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:35 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Clarify the definition of dol:LogicMapping in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-17
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The definition of Logic Mapping suggests that it can be any kind of mapping between logics, but the comment says it should be either a translation or reduction, which seems to be more specific. Should LogicMapping be the disjoint union of LogicTranslation and LogicReduction?

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:33 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

Revise/clarify the definition and related notes for dol:LogicReduction in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-18
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    LogicReduction has a note "mapping between logics forgetting parts of the structure, projection to a smaller logic, in contrast to reduction". Should be "mapping between logics forgetting parts of the structure, projection to a smaller logic, in contrast to translation"

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:34 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

Clarify the definition of dol:OMSLanguageTranslation

  • Key: DOL-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Add a note (if it is true) that an dol:OMSLanguageTranslation could also be called an dol:OMSLanguageMapping, since the formalization simply requires that the mapping be from and to OMS Languages.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:31 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

Missing definition for dol:OMSLanguageReduction

  • Key: DOL-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    There is no definition of a dol:OMSLanguageReduction, but reduction is mentioned in the definition of dol:OMSLanguageTranslation.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:32 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

There are redundant axioms for LogicTranslation and LogicReduction

  • Key: DOL-14
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    There is a similar group of redundant axioms for subclasses of LogicTranslation and LogicReduction, that explicitly state they are subclasses of LogicMapping. It should be okay to delete these redundant declarations.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:30 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Redundant declaration of dol:OMSLanguageTranslation in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    There is a redundant declaration of dol:OMSLanguageTranslation as a subclass of dol:Mapping, in addition to it being a subclass of dol:LanguageMapping, which could be deleted.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:28 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

There are multiple definitions for dol:OMSLanguageTranslation in the ontology which should be clarified and distilled to a single definition

  • Key: DOL-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    dol:OMSLanguageTranslation has two definitions with slightly different wording. One says "a mapping (translation or reduction) between two OMS languages", which seems like it would be more appropriate for dol:OMSLanguageMapping, a concept that is not explicitly defined. The second says "mapping from constructs in the source OMS language to their equivalents in the target OMS language". It is not clear in what sense "equivalent" is meant here.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:27 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need to clarify the use of "text" in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In dol:OMSLanguageTranslation the use of "text" in the note suggests that a translation is always between texts (presumably, a coarse-grained syntactic category like Common Logic texts?), rather than between the more fine-grained syntactic "constructs". It would be more clear to either define "dol:Text" and "dol:Construct" or re-use terms that are formally defined, such as dol:Term or dol:Expression.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:26 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

The text definition of dol:Mapping does not agree with the way the class is specified.

  • Key: DOL-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The natural language definition of dol:Mapping does not agree with the formalization, in that logic mappings are not set-theoretic mappings, but are families of set-theoretic mappings. The natural language definition could be generalized to "set-theoretic mapping or family of set-theoretic mappings" (as suggested by Till), so that it would be correct to say that dol:LogicMapping is a subclass of dol:Mapping. This would still exclude dol:SignatureMorphism.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:22 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need to clarify what is meant by a "construct" in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The term "construct" is used in several annotations (:isLanguageAspectOf definition, :LanguageAspect, ...). Is this a synonym for dol:Term or dol:Expression or something different? To make this more clear, either a term dol:Construct could be defined, or an existing concept could be used instead.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:23 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need to clarify the role of logical symbols in the ontology

  • Key: DOL-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The natural language definition of Term "syntactic expression either consisting of a single non-logical symbol or recursively composed of other terms (a.k.a. its subterms)" is a little unclear, as it leaves some question as to the role of logical symbols. The intent is made more clear by the existence of the subclass Sentence, which presumably includes sentences with logical connectives, but as a stand-alone definition it is vague. Perhaps an explanatory note could be added, because in some standards the "term" class does not include sentences.

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:24 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need for intermediate class to disambiguate OWL 2 profiles

  • Key: DOL-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    There appears to not be an intermediate concept between dol:OMSLanguage and dol:Profile for a dol:OMSLanguage with a particular logic (e.g. OWL2 with Direct Semantics).
    While this is not an error of the DOL ontology, this is a concept that would be useful for API4KB.

    We are surprised that this concept is not needed in DOL, because e.g. this concept enables the distinction between OWL 2 (in general) and OWL DL or OWL Full, It would also potentially be needed to distinguish between OWL 2 profiles.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:16 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

Missing concept for Symbol in the DOL ontology

  • Key: DOL-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    There is no concept of Symbol but it is used in the definition of Language, and there is a concept of NonLogicalSymbol.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:19 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Elements described as "logical theories" are not defined as such

  • Key: DOL-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Each of "dol:Ontology", "dol:Specification" and "dol:MDEModel" are defined as "logical theories", but they are not subclasses of dol:LogicalTheory. Further, their definition suggests they are roles (i.e. non-rigid properties) of dol:LogicalTheory. If this is the intended meaning, then the definition should say this explicitly.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:12 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Potential misclassification of several classes

  • Key: DOL-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The definition of dol:OMS suggests it should be a disjoint union of dol:Ontology, dol:Specification and dol:MDEModel, while formally they are subclasses. It is not clear if dol:OMS should be considered a role, or a subclass of logical theory. Based on the note attached to OMS, which says "an OMS is a collection of expressions, like ...", I would expect that OMS is a subclass of logical theory, not a role. Therefore, dol:Ontology, dol:Specification and dol:MDEModel would not be subclasses of OMS, but roles that an OMS can play.

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:13 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

The definition of dol:AbstractSyntax implies that it should be a subclass of dol:Language

  • Key: DOL-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The definition of dol:AbstractSyntax says it is a (term) language that ... . Therefore It should be a subclass of dol:Language.

    Also, the definition dol:AbstractSyntax does not capture the common notion of abstract syntax in OMG. Perhaps "platform-independent metamodel for a language"?

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:08 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments:

Typo in the definition of the dol:Ontology class

  • Key: DOL-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    There is a typo in definition of ontology "shard" =>"shared".

    (API4KB team)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:10 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT

The name of the OMS language graph class in the ontology does not match its label

  • Key: DOL-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The class, dol:LanguageGraph has a label of "OMS language graph", which is more explicit. If that is the intent of the class from a usage perspective, the name should be revised to dol:OMSLanguageGraph.

    (API4KB team input)

  • Reported: DOL 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:06 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:27 GMT
  • Attachments: