1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) 1.2 Revision Task Force

All Issues

  • All Issues
  • Name: odm-rtf
  • Issues Count: 180

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
ODM12-131 ODM does not specify how to use triples ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-55 There is a general lack of composition relationships for model management – in both the RDF and OWL metamodels ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-130 Serializing a self-contained model is problematic ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-129 Section 10.2.4's description of an RDFSResource is misleading ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-128 OWL metamodel needs an association between CardinalityRestriction and DataRange ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-127 OWLDatatype should specialize RDFSDatatype ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-126 Erroneous association in definition of Document? ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-125 Section 11.6.1 uses "ClassExpressions" instead of "DataRanges" ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-124 Conflicting role names in OWL metamodel ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-123 Issues in Annex G ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-122 Annex D needs complete models ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-32 There are still mentions of OWL Full and OWL DL ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-28 The subclass stereotype in the RDF profile section needs to be simplified to match the normative xmi model ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-26 The section on changes required to other OMG specs has been made moot by SMOF ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-46 The UML Profile for RDF and OWL still refers to the UML Superstructure Specification ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-118 Figure 10.8 has role name ambiguity ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-73 Inferring subsumption ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-83 Figure 16.1 incomplete ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-71 Multiple Domains or Ranges for Properties. ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-70 complementOf and disjointWith ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-64 Range Restriction Restriction Classes ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-63 Constructed Classes ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-65 Anonymous Classes ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-66 Ontology Properties ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-62 Properties in OWL ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-24 Some values of the rdf:esource attribute are incorrect ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-25 The conformance section of the document needs to be revised to support the new metamodel structure ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-114 ODM specification uses OWLDataRange instead of DataRange ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-113 Section D.4.5.2 has incorrect table reference ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-112 Typos in Section 10.8.5 ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-111 Invalid association in RDF metamodel, Section 10.8.1? ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-110 Section 10.4.3 has a typo in a property name ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-107 The Course ontology in Annex D is imprecisely defined ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-69 navigableOwnedEnd ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-76 Table 16.12, classes as instances ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-22 Annex mixes UML and OWL terminology ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-72 Names, unique names. ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-75 Boolean combination ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-74 Table 16.10 ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-79 Classes of classes ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-82 Table 16.9 and Naries ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-81 Associations ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-78 Distinct associations, restrictions ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-77 Distinct associations, ownedAttribute associations ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-80 Associations ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-67 Individuals, mapping ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-68 Multiplicity. ODM 1.0b2 open
ODM12-99 ODM does not use most recent version of UML ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-23 Revise the overview section to support the latest changes in the metamodel structure ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-4 Representation of Axioms ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-3 Representation of Axioms ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-50 ODM Metamodel takes a different approach to OWL restrictions from the Profile (and indeed from OWL): ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-53 Spec is sorely in need of examples showing how to represent common RDF/OWL constructs as instances of metamodel ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-59 Constraints in the OWL Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL ODM 1.0b1 open
ODM12-61 Constraints in the RDF Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL ODM 1.0b1 open
ODM12-39 OWLOntology::owlUniverse is not documented – in fact it’s in 11.7.2 which should be moved ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-38 In 10.6.3, RDFSisDefinedBy should be a subproperty of seeAlso ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-41 In 10.6.2 the property “resource” does not seem right ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-40 In 10.6.3 the constraints should not refer to IRIs but linked objects ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-42 On Triple (mis-named RDF Triple in the spec), statement, document are not documented ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-43 On RDFSResource, groupingNamespace, RDFSLabel, RDFSComment, are not documented ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-29 OWLAllDifferent should specialize ClassExpression not OWLClass ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-35 Question section 11.2.3 RDFSLiteral (Augmented) ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-33 10.9.8 does not document bNode ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-36 In 10.9.7, graphForNG should be just graph ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-34 In 10.9.4 the attribute namespacePrefix should be just prefix ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-37 In 10.9.1, Document::xmlBase should be deleted (it’s on Source now) ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-16 Multiplicity Conflict ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-19 Class Node should be abstract ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-1 ODM metamodel needs a Package concept for managing a structure for ontologies ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-49 Remove sub-packages of OWL metamodel ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-51 ODM does not support internationalized URIs (Chapter 17) ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-52 Provide support for distinguishing asserted vs. inferred axioms ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-54 Stereotypes should be shown on diagrams in the RDF and OWL profiles ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-56 Users creating domain ontologies want their models to be user friendly ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-60 In the CL metamodel the associations Conjunction and Disjunction clash with class names. ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-57 Examples provided for owl:inverseOf are misleading ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-58 Mapping from Common Logic to OWL should be revised ODM 1.0b1 open
ODM12-44 profiles submitted with the RTF report include stereotype definitions that are not in the submitted RTF report itself ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-47 ODM does not support internationalized URIs (Chapter 16) ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-48 Stereotypes for RDF Containers and Collections ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-45 The section numbers refer to the 1.1 convenience document ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-21 Annex uses old stereotype name ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-27 The proof of concept section should be revised to discuss support by Thematix/No Magic and Sparx ODM 1.0 open
ODM12-30 OWLOntologyProperty is obsolete ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-31 Constraint [1] of AnnotationProperty still has URIReference and RDFLLiteral ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-11 Typos, grammatical errors, and style issues ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-14 Incorrect relationship between OWL and RDF packages? ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-15 Graphical representation of «equivalentClass» conflicts with text ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-17 UML class name typo ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-18 Conflicting property names for stereotype "statement" ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-20 Update annotation stereotype in OWL profile ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-6 The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 property chains ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-7 The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 inverse object property expressions ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-5 The ODM Metamodel and Profile model libraries should support OWL2 extra built-in datatypes (rational, real) ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-10 The ODM Metamodel and Profile model libraries should support OWL2 universal and empty object and data properties ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-8 The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 pairwise disjoint and disjoint union classes ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-9 WL2 n-ary datatype hook and universal and existential restriction on n-ary data ranges ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-12 Stereotypes associated with Restrictions in the OWL Profile are incompletely defined ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-13 Self Object Property Restrictions are only partially supported in the ODM 1.1 Specification ODM 1.1 open
ODM12-2 Issues on ODM 1.1 UML XMI file for RDFLibrary ODM 1.1 open
ODM11-173 How to relate RDF Classes to an OWL Ontology in ODM metamodel ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-172 Further characteristics of Properties ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-171 Qualified Restrictions In Metamodel ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-170 RDFWeb serves no purpose ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-158 ODM 1.1 Editorial Changes ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-157 ODM 1.1 Report contains editing bugs ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-156 Revise the RDF Metamodel and Profile to support RDF source and dataset ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-155 Annex D has a number of issues and should be removed ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-154 Revise the ODM to support UML/MOF 2.4.1 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-153 Annex F has been superceded by SMOF ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-152 Move Chapter 16 to an Informative Annex ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-151 Need to augment stereotyped literal strings with InstanceSpecification metaclass ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-150 Need a stereotype to link local extended defs to the definitions they reference in imported vocabularies ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-149 Need a stereotype to visually link individuals to their classifiers ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-148 Typed literal definitions should be mapped to their defining datatypes ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-147 Datatype definitions should be mapped to UML primitives ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-146 Label and URI properties are duplicated on many elements in the RDF and OWL profiles ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-145 ODM does not support XML Schema Datatype facets, which were added in OWL 2 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-144 ODM should support recent W3C definitions for plain literals ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-143 ODM does not support internationalized URIs ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-142 derived Association OWLBase::/TripleForGraph ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-117 UML Profile for RDF and OWL, Section 14.2.5 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-116 Text describing owl:someValuesFrom and owl:hasValue limits implementations ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-115 OWL Model Library elements are missing owl:versionInfo attributes ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-114 Specification: RDFSComment optional representation as plain literal ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-113 RDFSContainer-MembershipProperty ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-112 Thing in the Profile ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-111 Range Restriction Restriction Classes ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-110 Universal Superclass ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-109 Enumeration literals ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-108 N-aries. Section 16.3.6 ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-107 Object identification in UML ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-106 UML to OWL, Table 16.10 ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-105 UML to OWL, OWL-DL ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-104 Profiles ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-103 Keywords ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-102 Complex Objects ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-101 Other OWL ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-100 Names, UML namespaces ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-125 Section: UML Profile for OWL and RDF ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-124 rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency. ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-123 Section: 14.1.3.5 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-122 Section: 14.2.8.1 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-121 NamespaceDefinition is defined as a metaclass, without a stereotype ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-120 Section: Appendix A, Section A.3 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-119 Section: 10.9.3 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-118 Section: 10.2.2 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-133 RDFProperty, RDFObjectProperty, and RDFDatatypeProperty shouldn't apply to classes ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-132 rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency 3 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-131 rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency 2 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-130 RDFGlobalProperty shouldn't apply to classes ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-129 owlValue and allValuesFrom 2 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-128 Figure 14.19 is property subsetting ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-127 owlValue and allValuesFrom ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-126 Figure 14.10 missing property subsetting ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-141 I propose that the following properties are owned by the Association ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-140 In Annex F the use of OWLClass::/isClassKind: and OWLClass::/hasRestrictionKind is not sufficient ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-139 OWLClass::isClassKind:OCLClassKind breaks convention that ‘is’ at the start of properties is used to indicate Booleans ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-138 It would be preferable for isDeprecated to be non-optional with a default value of false. ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-137 multiple inheritance for MOF shown in Figure F.4 ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-136 In the OWL metamodel the Restriction Cardinality elements should own their TypedLiteral ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-135 The PrimitiveTypes in the metamodel XMI file are instances of Class not PrimitiveType ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-134 rdfs:Literal ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-99 Table 16.12, disjoint ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-98 Table 16.12, AllValuesFrom ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-97 Table 16.12, Thing ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-96 Table 16.11 ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-95 Derivation. ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-94 Mandatory properties ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-93 Disjoint. ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-92 Individuals ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-90 Translation of binary associations. ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-89 Association member ends ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-88 Subproperites and redefintion ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-87 Identifiers ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-86 Formal structure ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-85 Annex D.4 sets ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-84 Figure D.3 notation ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed
ODM11-91 UML Thing 2 ODM 1.0b2 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

ODM does not specify how to use triples

  • Key: ODM12-131
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    Triples are necessary to state certain semantics in the metamodel (as opposed to the profile). For example, property assertions must be expressed using triples. The metamodel sections do not state how and when triples are to be used.

    This issue requests that documentation be added to metamodel sections describing how to use triples.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Wed, 3 May 2017 16:36 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:45 GMT

There is a general lack of composition relationships for model management – in both the RDF and OWL metamodels

  • Key: ODM12-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16039
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There is a general lack of composition relationships for model management – in both the RDF and OWL metamodels

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:40 GMT
  • Attachments:

Serializing a self-contained model is problematic

  • Key: ODM12-130
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    Because of the composition relationships in the current RDF and OWL metamodels, it is not possible to create a model that:

    1. contains an instance of class Namespace, and
    2. has an XMI serialization with a single root element that owns, directly or indirectly, all the other elements in the model.

    Class NamedGraph is the only class that can own Namespace (that is, the association between NamedGraph and Namespace is the only composite association involving Namespace). Therefore, a model with an instance of Namespace must either be serialized with a root element of Namespace or NamedGraph. In either case, the serialization cannot contain a Source or a NamespaceDefinition. No associations in the metamodel allow a Namespace or a NamedGraph to own a Source or a NamespaceDefinition, either directly or indirectly.

    Conversely, a model with a Source has no serialization in which the Source can own, directly or indirectly, a Namespace.

    The serialization of an ontology represented using the metamodel must contain (at least) two instances of metamodel classes. This is problematic for ECore, where the persistent representation of an ontology must exist in multiple files.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:36 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:36 GMT

Section 10.2.4's description of an RDFSResource is misleading

  • Key: ODM12-129
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    Section 10.4.2 states:

    All things described by RDF are called resources. This is the class of everything. All other classes are subclasses of this
    class.

    This is true of RDF, but it is not true of the RDF metamodel. Class RDFSResource is not the superclass of all classes in the RDF metamodel. The paragraph should be rewritten to clarify that it applies to RDF but not the RDF metamodel.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:07 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:07 GMT

OWL metamodel needs an association between CardinalityRestriction and DataRange

  • Key: ODM12-128
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    In the OWL metamodel, class CardinalityRestriction has an association with ClassExpression but not with DataRange. Consequently, the metamodel can represent a cardinality restriction such as:

    objProp exactly 1 cls

    and

    dataProp exactly 1

    but not

    dataProp exactly 1 xsd:string

    The metamodel does associate SomeValuesFromRestriction and AllValuesFromRestriction with both ClassExpression and DataRange. It needs the corresponding association for CardinalityRestriction.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:55 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:55 GMT

OWLDatatype should specialize RDFSDatatype

  • Key: ODM12-127
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    OWLDatatype specializes DataRange, which specializes RDFSClass. But the OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs states in Table 1 that an OWL datatype maps to the triple:

    	T(DT) rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
    

    OWLDatatype should specialize RDFSDatatype rather than RDFSClass.

    Classes DataIntersectionOf, DataUnionOf, DataComplementOf, DataOneOf, and DatatypeRestriction also map to triples of this form. Together with OWLDatatype, that's all the subclasses of DataRange. Should DataRange specialize RDFSDatatype instead of RDFSClass?

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:44 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:44 GMT

Erroneous association in definition of Document?

  • Key: ODM12-126
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    The second association for class Document in the RDF metamodel (Section 10.8.1) is to Namespace, with role name xmlBase. The association's name is DefaultNamespaceForDocument. There is no corresponding association for Namespace (10.8.2). Association DefaultNamespaceForDocument exists between classes Source and Namespace. That role name is defaultNamespace, not xmlBase. Source has an association with role name xmlBase, but the associated class is IRI.

    Given that an association to Namespace exists in a superclass of Document, the xmlBase association is either redundant or a specialization that needs to be further described.

    Also, should the association between Source and Namespace be named DefaultNamespaceForSource instead of DefaultNamespaceForDocument?

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:50 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:50 GMT

Section 11.6.1 uses "ClassExpressions" instead of "DataRanges"

  • Key: ODM12-125
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    Section 11.6.1 describes how the OWL DataRange concept is modeled. Its Constraint [1] has the phrase "ClassExpressions must be anonymous". The phrase should read "DataRanges must be anonymous".

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:41 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:41 GMT

Conflicting role names in OWL metamodel

  • Key: ODM12-124
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 11.4, both classes DataRange and ClassExpression have two associations whose role names are "restrictionClass". UML does not permit a class to have multiple associations with the same role name.

    This issue is being reported based on Figure 11.4, but it affects sections 11.3.1 and 11.6.1 as well.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:36 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:37 GMT

Issues in Annex G

  • Key: ODM12-123
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    Annex G (MOF QVT: A Brief Tutorial) contains some statements that are incorrect or incomplete:

    • Section G.2, paragraph 3, sentence 2 states: "No work is done via a when clause". This is misleading. Relations invoked in a when clause can create instances.
    • Section G.2, paragraph 3, sentence 4: The sentence states that predicates can be connected by an or operator. Individual predicates can contain or operators, but the QVT specification doesn't say or connects predicates.
    • Section G.2, paragraph 4: The paragraph reads "OCL functions can be used." This is true, but incomplete. QVT permits a transformation to define functions, and to access externally-defined functions written in a language such as Java. The paragraph should be amended to describe these types of functions.
    • Section G.2, paragraph 5, sentence 1:
      • The sentence references OCL statements. The OCL specification describes a statement as something along the lines of an invariant (including the keyword inv) or a default attribute value. The correct term is "OCL expressions".
      • The sentence neglects to state that an OCL let expression can define a variable.
    • Section G.2, paragraph 7, sentence 2 reads "A top relation is executed by the system." A top relation may also be called in a where clause.
    • Section G.3, paragraph 6, sentence 2 reads "A process in a repository can link from one object to another via any property ..." The paragraph does not explain what "process" means.
    • Section G.3, paragraph 2, last sentence: the second clause should begin with "it".
  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:23 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:23 GMT

Annex D needs complete models

  • Key: ODM12-122
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    Annex D illustrates transforming between UML and OWL using an example that shows courses, students, their relationships, and their properties. The examples are presented in fragments throughout section D.2. Readers would benefit from access to complete UML and RDF models. Furthermore, these models being definitive, rigorous, and complete, they would be the basis for the figures and tables in Section D.2 (and perhaps elsewhere in Annex D).

    This issue includes two attachments:

    • Course-Student.mdzip is a UML class model. It can be opened using MagicDraw.
    • AnnexDExamples.rdf is an OWL 2 model expressed in RDF/XML format.

    These models are informative, not normative.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 6 Jan 2017 22:34 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 22:34 GMT
  • Attachments:

There are still mentions of OWL Full and OWL DL

  • Key: ODM12-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19111
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There are still mentions of OWL Full and OWL DL

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:47 GMT

The subclass stereotype in the RDF profile section needs to be simplified to match the normative xmi model

  • Key: ODM12-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19115
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:35 GMT

The section on changes required to other OMG specs has been made moot by SMOF

  • Key: ODM12-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19117
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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)

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:26 GMT

The UML Profile for RDF and OWL still refers to the UML Superstructure Specification

  • Key: ODM12-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19093
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:18 GMT

Figure 10.8 has role name ambiguity

  • Key: ODM12-118
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 10.8, class Graph has associations to classes Dataset and Source. Both these associations have role name "root". That is not valid, because it creates ambiguity in OCL expressions.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:07 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:07 GMT


Figure 16.1 incomplete

  • Key: ODM12-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10849
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT
  • Attachments:

Multiple Domains or Ranges for Properties.

  • Key: ODM12-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10910
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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?

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT

complementOf and disjointWith

  • Key: ODM12-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10909
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT

Range Restriction Restriction Classes

  • Key: ODM12-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10916
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT

Constructed Classes

  • Key: ODM12-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10914
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT

Anonymous Classes

  • Key: ODM12-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10912
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Anonymous Classes. Section 16.4.4.3 (Anonymous Class to Class) can translate blank nodes to anonymous classes in UML.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT

Ontology Properties

  • Key: ODM12-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10911
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT

Properties in OWL

  • Key: ODM12-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10917
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT

Some values of the rdf:esource attribute are incorrect

  • Key: ODM12-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19125
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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"/>

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:28 GMT

The conformance section of the document needs to be revised to support the new metamodel structure

  • Key: ODM12-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19118
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:12 GMT
  • Attachments:

ODM specification uses OWLDataRange instead of DataRange

  • Key: ODM12-114
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    In 14 places, the ODM specification uses OWLDataRange: 12 times in the metamodel and twice in Annex D. The metamodel defines class DataRange, not OWLDataRange.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Mon, 8 Aug 2016 14:49 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 14:49 GMT

Section D.4.5.2 has incorrect table reference

  • Key: ODM12-113
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    The first paragraph in section D.4.5.2 says Table A.4 in Annex A has the UML elements for OWL. These elements are now in Table A.6. The text needs to be brought up to date.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 5 Aug 2016 21:45 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 21:45 GMT

Typos in Section 10.8.5

  • Key: ODM12-112
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    In the Associations for NamedGraph (Section 10.8.5, p. 55):

    • The first role is named graphForNG. In Figure 10.8, it's "graph".
    • The second role is graphname. In Figure 10.8, it's "graphName".
  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:26 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:26 GMT

Invalid association in RDF metamodel, Section 10.8.1?

  • Key: ODM12-111
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    The second association for Document (Section 10.8.1, p. 53) has role xmlBase. Is this a legacy of a previous version? The role name isn't in Figure 10.8, and the description references association DefaultNamespaceForDocument, which is between Source and Namespace.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:14 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:14 GMT

Section 10.4.3 has a typo in a property name

  • Key: ODM12-110
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    In section 10.4.3, in the Associations section, the 2nd bullet has "RDFSProperty" as the type of the RDFpredicate role. It should be RDFProperty.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:56 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:56 GMT

The Course ontology in Annex D is imprecisely defined

  • Key: ODM12-107
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    Annex D uses a simple example, comprising courses, students, instructors, and their relationships. It presents this example in both UML and OWL. The OWL is fragmentary. A non-normative, machine-readable OWL file would resolve questions about the ontology's exact content.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:13 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 22:04 GMT

navigableOwnedEnd

  • Key: ODM12-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10906
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:49 GMT

Table 16.12, classes as instances

  • Key: ODM12-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10889
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:49 GMT

Annex mixes UML and OWL terminology

  • Key: ODM12-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19126
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Names, unique names.

  • Key: ODM12-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10893
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Boolean combination

  • Key: ODM12-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10892
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Boolean combination. In Section 16.5.1 (Predicate Definition Language), third sentence, UML supports the equivalent of unionOf.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Table 16.10

  • Key: ODM12-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10885
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Classes of classes

  • Key: ODM12-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10877
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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".

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Table 16.9 and Naries

  • Key: ODM12-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10872
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Associations

  • Key: ODM12-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10866
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Distinct associations, restrictions

  • Key: ODM12-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10864
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Distinct associations, ownedAttribute associations

  • Key: ODM12-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10863
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Associations

  • Key: ODM12-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10853
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Individuals, mapping

  • Key: ODM12-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10908
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

Multiplicity.

  • Key: ODM12-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10905
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Multiplicity. Section 16.3.7 (Multiplicity), the translation can also be to OWL FunctionalProperty or InverseFunctionalProperty if the multiplicity is 1.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 06:48 GMT

ODM does not use most recent version of UML

  • Key: ODM12-99
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    ODM's metamodels are based on UML 2.4.1, which was formalized in August 2011. UML 2.5 was formalized in June 2015. ODM should switch to UML 2.5 as soon is as practical.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:58 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:45 GMT

Revise the overview section to support the latest changes in the metamodel structure

  • Key: ODM12-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19120
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:09 GMT

Representation of Axioms

  • Key: ODM12-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19416
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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)
  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Wed, 14 May 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:08 GMT

Representation of Axioms

  • Key: ODM12-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19421
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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)
  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Wed, 14 May 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:07 GMT

ODM Metamodel takes a different approach to OWL restrictions from the Profile (and indeed from OWL):

  • Key: ODM12-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17338
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:06 GMT

Spec is sorely in need of examples showing how to represent common RDF/OWL constructs as instances of metamodel

  • Key: ODM12-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16040
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:05 GMT

Constraints in the OWL Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL

  • Key: ODM12-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11100
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:05 GMT

Constraints in the RDF Metamodel Chapter (10) should be specified in OCL

  • Key: ODM12-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11099
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:04 GMT

OWLOntology::owlUniverse is not documented – in fact it’s in 11.7.2 which should be moved

  • Key: ODM12-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19109
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    OWLOntology::owlUniverse is not documented – in fact it’s in 11.7.2 which should be moved

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:04 GMT

In 10.6.3, RDFSisDefinedBy should be a subproperty of seeAlso

  • Key: ODM12-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19103
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 10.6.3, RDFSisDefinedBy should be a subproperty of seeAlso

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:03 GMT

In 10.6.2 the property “resource” does not seem right

  • Key: ODM12-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19102
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 10.6.2 the property “resource” does not seem right

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:03 GMT

In 10.6.3 the constraints should not refer to IRIs but linked objects

  • Key: ODM12-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19104
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 10.6.3 the constraints should not refer to IRIs but linked objects

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:03 GMT

On Triple (mis-named RDF Triple in the spec), statement, document are not documented

  • Key: ODM12-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19101
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:03 GMT

On RDFSResource, groupingNamespace, RDFSLabel, RDFSComment, are not documented

  • Key: ODM12-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19100
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    On RDFSResource, groupingNamespace, RDFSLabel, RDFSComment, are not documented. Actually the latter are in 10.3.2 which should be moved

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:02 GMT

OWLAllDifferent should specialize ClassExpression not OWLClass

  • Key: ODM12-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19114
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    OWLAllDifferent should specialize ClassExpression not OWLClass

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:01 GMT

Question section 11.2.3 RDFSLiteral (Augmented)

  • Key: ODM12-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19110
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Question section 11.2.3 RDFSLiteral (Augmented)

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:00 GMT

10.9.8 does not document bNode

  • Key: ODM12-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19108
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    10.9.8 does not document bNode

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:59 GMT

In 10.9.7, graphForNG should be just graph

  • Key: ODM12-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19107
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 10.9.7, graphForNG should be just graph

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:59 GMT

In 10.9.4 the attribute namespacePrefix should be just prefix

  • Key: ODM12-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19106
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 10.9.4 the attribute namespacePrefix should be just prefix

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:59 GMT

In 10.9.1, Document::xmlBase should be deleted (it’s on Source now)

  • Key: ODM12-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19105
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 10.9.1, Document::xmlBase should be deleted (it’s on Source now)

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:58 GMT

Multiplicity Conflict

  • Key: ODM12-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19170
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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..*.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:57 GMT

Class Node should be abstract

  • Key: ODM12-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19168
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Sat, 28 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:56 GMT

ODM metamodel needs a Package concept for managing a structure for ontologies

  • Key: ODM12-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19630
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Mon, 6 Oct 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:43 GMT

Remove sub-packages of OWL metamodel

  • Key: ODM12-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19079
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:04 GMT

ODM does not support internationalized URIs (Chapter 17)

  • Key: ODM12-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19025
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Provide support for distinguishing asserted vs. inferred axioms

  • Key: ODM12-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17424
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

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

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

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

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

    Then, an OWL2 reasoner will infer the following axiom:

    SubCassOf( A C )

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

    view1:

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

    view2:

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

    view3:

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Stereotypes should be shown on diagrams in the RDF and OWL profiles

  • Key: ODM12-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16497
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Stereotypes should be shown on diagrams in an abstract syntax section under each profile, not only in text under each stereotype.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Users creating domain ontologies want their models to be user friendly

  • Key: ODM12-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16256
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Cory Casanave)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 19 May 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

In the CL metamodel the associations Conjunction and Disjunction clash with class names.

  • Key: ODM12-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16036
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Examples provided for owl:inverseOf are misleading

  • Key: ODM12-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12400
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Mapping from Common Logic to OWL should be revised

  • Key: ODM12-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11102
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

profiles submitted with the RTF report include stereotype definitions that are not in the submitted RTF report itself

  • Key: ODM12-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19080
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

ODM does not support internationalized URIs (Chapter 16)

  • Key: ODM12-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19026
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Stereotypes for RDF Containers and Collections

  • Key: ODM12-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18863
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Tue, 20 Aug 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The section numbers refer to the 1.1 convenience document

  • Key: ODM12-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19099
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The section numbers refer to the 1.1 convenience document

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Annex uses old stereotype name

  • Key: ODM12-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19138
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The proof of concept section should be revised to discuss support by Thematix/No Magic and Sparx

  • Key: ODM12-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19119
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The set of implementations referenced is out of date and should be revised to discuss current implementations.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

OWLOntologyProperty is obsolete

  • Key: ODM12-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19113
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    OWLOntologyProperty is obsolete

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Constraint [1] of AnnotationProperty still has URIReference and RDFLLiteral

  • Key: ODM12-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19112
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] of AnnotationProperty still has URIReference and RDFLLiteral

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Typos, grammatical errors, and style issues

  • Key: ODM12-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19279
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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;""."

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Incorrect relationship between OWL and RDF packages?

  • Key: ODM12-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19183
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Graphical representation of «equivalentClass» conflicts with text

  • Key: ODM12-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19182
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    In the GraphicalRepresentation section of owl:equivalentClass, the text says the representation is a dashed line, but Figure 14.41 shows a solid line.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

UML class name typo

  • Key: ODM12-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19181
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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").

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Conflicting property names for stereotype "statement"

  • Key: ODM12-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19140
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Wed, 11 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Update annotation stereotype in OWL profile

  • Key: ODM12-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19139
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    Line 87 of the OWL profile (http://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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 property chains

  • Key: ODM12-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19317
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Property chains were added as a feature of OWL 2 and need to be supported in the ODM metamodel and profile.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 inverse object property expressions

  • Key: ODM12-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19316
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Inverse property expressions were new in OWL 2 and support for them needs to be added to the ODM specification.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The ODM Metamodel and Profile model libraries should support OWL2 extra built-in datatypes (rational, real)

  • Key: ODM12-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19315
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    These datatypes were added in OWL 2, and should be supported in the metamodel, profile and related libraries.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The ODM Metamodel and Profile model libraries should support OWL2 universal and empty object and data properties

  • Key: ODM12-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19314
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 pairwise disjoint and disjoint union classes

  • Key: ODM12-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19313
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

WL2 n-ary datatype hook and universal and existential restriction on n-ary data ranges

  • Key: ODM12-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19312
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 n-ary datatype hook and universal and existential restriction on n-ary data ranges

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Stereotypes associated with Restrictions in the OWL Profile are incompletely defined

  • Key: ODM12-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19311
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Self Object Property Restrictions are only partially supported in the ODM 1.1 Specification

  • Key: ODM12-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19310
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Issues on ODM 1.1 UML XMI file for RDFLibrary

  • Key: ODM12-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19656
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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="http://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="http://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="http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/RDFLibrary.xmi">

    <profileApplication xmi:type="uml:ProfileApplication" xmi:id="_RDFProfile-Application">

    <appliedProfile href="http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/20131101/RDFProfile.xmi#_12_5_1_137b03ac_1193948135234_354269_2454"/>

  • Reported: ODM 1.1 — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

How to relate RDF Classes to an OWL Ontology in ODM metamodel

  • Key: ODM11-173
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19073
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There are ontologies such as Dublin Core which consist of RDFS Classes, but, for various reasons, also have an OWL Ontology. Currently the ODM metamodel does not have a way to represent this association – only OWL Classes can be linked to an OWL Ontology (the ODM Profile can easily reuse the UML association between Package and PackagedElement but this usage should really be documented).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 8 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is addressed by the association ResourcesGrouped between Namespace and RDFSResource which was added by the resolution to issue 18862. Thus, this issue is resolved by 18862.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:16 GMT

Further characteristics of Properties

  • Key: ODM11-172
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19072
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The ODM Metamodel and Profile should support OWL2 reflexive, irreflexive and asymmetric properties

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 8 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 203 - 205 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:16 GMT

Qualified Restrictions In Metamodel

  • Key: ODM11-171
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19071
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The resolution to 12563 documented how to represent qualified Restrictions as added to OWL 2, using the UML Profile: the metamodel needs to be extended to provide an equivalent level of coverage.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 8 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pqges 197 - 202 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:16 GMT

RDFWeb serves no purpose

  • Key: ODM11-170
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18861
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Recent changes/clarifications in the RDF 1.1 specification reduce the need for a separate RDFWeb package. Further, there has been, and there is unlikely to be, any movement by other standards to use it to “map to similar features in a Common Logic ontology, Topic Map, UML, or ER conceptual model”. Finally, it adds confusion through the existence of duplicated class names with the RDFConcepts package.

    Therefore the package (section 10.9) should be removed and any metamodel elements merged into RDFConcepts.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Tue, 20 Aug 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    A. In section titles for 10.2 thru 10.5, remove “RDFBase Package,” and in titles 10.6 thru 10.8 remove “RDFS Package” and in 10.9 title remove “(RDFWeb Package)”

    B. Remove the package RDFWeb from the metamodel, merging all of its classes into RDF Concepts (using MOF/UML PackageMerge rules)

    C. Delete the first 2 paragraphs of section 10.9

    D. Retitle Figure 10.9 as “RDF Documents”

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:16 GMT

ODM 1.1 Editorial Changes

  • Key: ODM11-158
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19136
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:


    This issue addresses a number of editorial changes made to the ODM specification by the ODM 1.1 RTF against the originally submitted convenience documents, ptc/2013-08-02 and ptc/2013-08-03.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 216 - of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

ODM 1.1 Report contains editing bugs

  • Key: ODM11-157
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19135
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    This issue addresses a number of editing problems uncovered in the ODM 1.1 RTF report, ptc/2013-08-01.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 207 - 215 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Revise the RDF Metamodel and Profile to support RDF source and dataset

  • Key: ODM11-156
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18862
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax document, which has been stable for months and is now in Last Call at the W3C, has substantially redefined the notion of packaging from the perspective of an RDF vocabulary. An RDF source can include documents as well as realizations of an RDF graph in a repository, such as a triple store, which and been a gaping hole in earlier versions of the specification. These revisions are critical to proper packaging of RDF in ODM applications, and should be reflected in the metamodel and profile.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Tue, 20 Aug 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 187 - 196 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Annex D has a number of issues and should be removed

  • Key: ODM11-155
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18836
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Annex D, "Extending the ODM", describes methods for extending the metamodels defined in the specification. The metamodels themselves represent the abstract syntax of the languages they support, and rather than extending them, specification users tend to develop ontologies that use them.

    The RTF cannot identify a single user for this informative annex, which we believe is no longer relevant. We have no evidence that anyone has ever used this section of the specification over the last 6 years, and believe that we should not be advocating its approach. The annex should be removed from the specification.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:


    Delete Annex D, "Extending the ODM" from the specification.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Revise the ODM to support UML/MOF 2.4.1

  • Key: ODM11-154
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18835
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The ODM metamodels and profiles were developed using UML 2.1.2, OCL 2.0, MOF 2.0, and MOF XMI 2.1.1, and should be revised to support the latest versions of these specifications. The references in the normative references section of the document and any other text referring to these versions should be revised accordingly as well.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    1. The ODM machine readable files for the metamodel and UML Profile should be expressed in UML 2.4.1 (with MOF 2.4.1 for the Tags), and the non-normative ancillary files should use a version of MagicDraw that implements UML 2.4.1.
    2. In section 3, the reference to MOF should be as follows:
    [MOF] Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Version 2.4.1. OMG Specification, formal/2013-06-01. Latest version is available at http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.4.1/.
    3. In section 3, the reference to UML2 should be as follows:
    [UML2] Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.4.1. OMG Specification, formal/2011-08-06. Available at http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/.
    4. In section 3, delete the reference [UML Infra]

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Annex F has been superceded by SMOF

  • Key: ODM11-153
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18834
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Annex F, entitled "RDF and OWL Workarounds for MOF Multiple Classification Issue" is an informative annex in the specification, provided to address issues that are no longer valid. The SMOF specification was designed specifically to address the issues identified in the annex, in fact. The annex should be removed, as it is no longer needed.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete Annex F, "RDF and OWL Workarounds for MOF Multiple Classification Issue" from the specification

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Move Chapter 16 to an Informative Annex

  • Key: ODM11-152
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18833
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Chapter 16, which has always been an informative section of the ODM specification, describes differences between UML and OWL 1.0, and provides some guidance on strategies for mapping one to the other, including a partial mapping in QVT. There are a number of issues with the text, including the fact that it is outdated, but many people find it useful from an educational perspective.

    The RDF has determined that deleting the chapter altogether is not a good strategy due to the fact that so many educators have been using it as a teaching tool. However, because of the reasons listed above, the RTF would like it to have a less prominent role in the overall specification. Please move this chapter to an informative Annex in the document.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Move Chapter 16, “Mapping UML to OWL”, to an informative annex. This should follow Annex C, “Description Logic Metamodel” and precede Annex E, “Mappings – Informative, Not Normative”, in terms of its ordering in the document.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Need to augment stereotyped literal strings with InstanceSpecification metaclass

  • Key: ODM11-151
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16504
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Literal Strings are not well defined in UML, and tools do not support them well. In order to be able to use stereotyped literal strings for elements such as URIs, labels, comments, and so forth, the stereotype definitions must include InstanceSpecification as a metaclass in addition to LiteralString in order to get expected behavior from mainstream UML tools.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolved to the resolution of 16496.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Need a stereotype to link local extended defs to the definitions they reference in imported vocabularies

  • Key: ODM11-150
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16503
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Need an additional stereotype in the RDF profile to link local augmentations to vocabulary definitions to the definitions that are specified in imported or referenced vocabularies, (<<rdfAbout>> - e.g., in cases where properties are added to imported classes, which would entail modification of the imported model in a UML project, which is typically prohibited).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:


    Resolved to the resolution of 16495.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Need a stereotype to visually link individuals to their classifiers

  • Key: ODM11-149
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16502
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Need an additional stereotype in the RDF profile to link individuals to their classifiers (<<rdfType>>) to aid in diagramatic / visual explanation of individual definitions in cases where they have numerous classifiers.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    1. Rename section 14.1.6.6 from “RDFType” to “RDF Types” and renumber it to 14.1.6.7
    2. Replace the text under Description beginning with “For M1, …” to the end of that paragraph with the following:
    In some cases, it may also be convenient to show this relationship directly in a diagram, and therefore we provide this optional stereotype as a dependency from the resource (or individual or literal in OWL) to its classifier(s).
    3. Insert additional text below the description, as follows:

    Stereotype and Base Class
    «rdfType», with base class of UML::Dependency

    Parent
    None

    Properties
    None

    Constraints
    None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Typed literal definitions should be mapped to their defining datatypes

  • Key: ODM11-148
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16501
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Need to link typed literals to their defining datatypes in the RDF profile and library, not just to the URI for the external xsd definition.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:


    Resolved to the resolution of 16496

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Datatype definitions should be mapped to UML primitives

  • Key: ODM11-147
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16500
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Need to be able to map xsd datatypes to UML primitive types in the RDF profile to facilitate tool support for value specification.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Revise section 14.1.6.2 RDFSDatatype, to add the following under Properties:
    • umlPrimitiveType: PrimitiveType [0..1] – the UML primitive type corresponding to the datatype

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Label and URI properties are duplicated on many elements in the RDF and OWL profiles

  • Key: ODM11-146
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16499
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Need better integration of the notions of labeled and named resources in the RDF profile: RDF resources may have multiple "PlainLiteral" labels in their RDFSlabel property, and multiple "PlainLiteral" comments in their RDFScomment property (where a plain literal includes a value string and language definition encoding). The same issue is prevalent in the OWL profile. These label and URI elements should reuse the same UML properties rather than proliferate duplicates.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 171 - 175 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

ODM does not support XML Schema Datatype facets, which were added in OWL 2

  • Key: ODM11-145
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16498
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Include definitions for xsd facets on datatypes for datatype restriction and user-defined datatype development in the XML Schema Datatype library, for OWL metamodel and profile.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 158 - 170 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

ODM should support recent W3C definitions for plain literals

  • Key: ODM11-144
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16496
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Formalize the definition of RDF plain literals in the RDF metamodel and profile to reflect recent W3C specification revisions.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 147 - 157 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

ODM does not support internationalized URIs

  • Key: ODM11-143
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16495
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Revise the RDF metamodel and profile to reflect modifications to the W3C standards to use internationalized URIs (IRIs).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 124 - 146 of ptc/2013-12-01 for details

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

derived Association OWLBase::/TripleForGraph

  • Key: ODM11-142
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16038
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    It’s unclear how derived Association OWLBase::/TripleForGraph is supposed to interact/be merged with underived RDFBase::TripleForGraph. There seems no need for a derived OWLGraph::/triple when OWLGraph inherits triple from RDFGraph. Or is it the intent that OWLGraph::triple

    {redefines RDFGraph::triple}

    – in which case that should be stated along with how it would be derived: via OWLGraph::ontology and Ontology::triple? And is it the intent that Triple has both a derived /owlGraph and a (non-derived) graph property? In which case the former should

    {subset}

    the latter and the derivation should be expressed.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    1. In section 11.2.1 remove “OWLGraph” from the following clause:
    Exceptions to this convention include OWLUniverse, OWLGraph, and OWLStatement,
    2. In Figure 11.2 remove OWLGraph, and the lines to it. Also remove RDFGraph which has no purpose in this diagram

    3. Remove section 11.2.1, OWLGraph

    4. In section 11.2.2, OWLOntology:
    Remove the first association:
    owlGraph: OWLGraph [1..*] in association GraphForOntology - links an ontology to one or more graphs containing the triples that define it.
    Remove all 4 constraints [1] through [4].

    5. Remove section 11.2.4 Triple (Augmented Definition)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML Profile for RDF and OWL, Section 14.2.5

  • Key: ODM11-117
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12563
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    There are several issues with the use of property redefinition to support restrictions in OWL. One of these involves the notion of property identity: OWL restrictions specify classes whose members have a restricted range of values for a particular property. In UML, property redefinition involves defining two distinct properties, potentially having the same name, one of which redefines the other, but that have unique identity and are related contextually via a constraint. Property identity is preserved in OWL, however – there is only one uniquely defined property referenced in property restrictions.
    In addition, the notation specified in the current ODM document (for all three kinds of restrictions – existential and universal quantification as well as restricting the range of the property to a particular individual or data value) does not provide the ability to indicate whether property redefinition means that the restriction is necessary for class membership or necessary and sufficient for class membership. In OWL, restrictions are formed by creating an anonymous restriction class that limits the values possible for the range of a particular property, and then linking this restriction class to other class expressions, such as a named class, either through a generalization (rdfs:subClassOf), corresponding to necessary conditions for class membership, or equivalence relationship (owl:equivalentClass), corresponding to necessary and sufficient conditions. There should be a visible way for modellers to make this distinction in an ODM-compliant model. Such anonymous restrictions can be used with other class expressions to build up complex expressions useful for classification and identity reasoning (for example, does some individual x meet the criteria to be a member of y).
    The proposed solution makes use of the «owlRestriction» stereotype, already available in the ODM specification, and augments that with a set of dependencies that connect the restriction to the property being restricted and to the class or individual/literal that provide the requisite source of value(s), as well as the use of either the «rdfsSubClassOf» stereotyped generalization or the «equivalentClass» stereotyped dependency or generalization that are already in the profile.
    Per RTF discussion all of the stereotypes and notation for restrictions have been consolidated under a single heading, rather than distributing them across several sections. As a result, the recommendation, below, incorporates details for both object and data restrictions, for number as well as value restrictions, together in section 14.2.5.3, and eliminates sections 14.2.5.4 through 14.2.5.6.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Text describing owl:someValuesFrom and owl:hasValue limits implementations

  • Key: ODM11-116
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12399
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a valid issue. Revise the text to support OWL Full as indicated above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

OWL Model Library elements are missing owl:versionInfo attributes

  • Key: ODM11-115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12394
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close, no change. The only elements in the OWL model library are Thing and Nothing, which should not have owl:versionInfo as attributes (or any attributes, for that matter – reserved language from OWL should not be modified).

    Revised Text: none

    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Specification: RDFSComment optional representation as plain literal

  • Key: ODM11-114
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12390
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • 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)

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolved to the resolution of 16496

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

RDFSContainer-MembershipProperty

  • Key: ODM11-113
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11321
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In Annex A, RDFSContainer-MembershipProperty should be moved to the UML Profile chapter as a stereotype based on UML:Property.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In Annex A, Section A.3, UML Profile for RDF Library Elements, in Table A.4 - Foundation Library (M1) for Use with the RDF Profile, remove the row (entire row in the table) describing RDFSContainerMembershipProperty.
    In Chapter 14, Section 14.1.8 Containers and Collections, insert a new section defining a stereotype for rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty, as given below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Thing in the Profile

  • Key: ODM11-112
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11320
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close, no change. The issue / section in question is in reference to the RDF profile, not the OWL profile, but Thing is only defined for use in OWL. There is no equivalent “class of everything” in the RDF language – rdfs:Resource is the closest, but its semantics are closer to those of an individual than a class.

    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Range Restriction Restriction Classes

  • Key: ODM11-111
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10915
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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".

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Universal Superclass

  • Key: ODM11-110
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10913
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Universal Superclass. Section 16.4.5.2 (Universal Superclass) should also refer to Annex A.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Enumeration literals

  • Key: ODM11-109
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10907
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

N-aries. Section 16.3.6

  • Key: ODM11-108
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10904
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change. It was previously resolved in FTF2 in response to issue 10869

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Object identification in UML

  • Key: ODM11-107
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10902
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML to OWL, Table 16.10

  • Key: ODM11-106
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10901
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML to OWL, OWL-DL

  • Key: ODM11-105
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10900
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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?

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Profiles

  • Key: ODM11-104
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10899
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete section 16.6.4 and Replace text in section 16.6.5 as described below.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Keywords

  • Key: ODM11-103
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10898
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete section 16.6.4 and Replace text in section 16.6.5 as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Complex Objects

  • Key: ODM11-102
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10897
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Other OWL

  • Key: ODM11-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10895
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Other OWL. In Section 16.5.3 (Other OWL Developments), should refer to OWL 1.1.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Names, UML namespaces

  • Key: ODM11-100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10894
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Names, UML namespaces. In Section 16.5.2 (Names), next to last paragraph, namespaces are supported at all metalevels in UML/MOF.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: UML Profile for OWL and RDF

  • Key: ODM11-125
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13978
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    owlValue stereotype missing UML compartment notation. The draft going into FTF ptc/06-10-11) showed the UML notation for owlValue using an attribute compartment on a class, but the current draft doesn't. It only refers to the allValuesFrom notation, which also doesn't show the compartment notation. The text and figure for owlValue in ptc/06-10-11 should be included again.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Closed to the resolution of Issue 12563.
    Revised Text: n/a

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency.

  • Key: ODM11-124
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13977
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency. These figures use associations as if they were links: Figure 14.6: Property hasColor Without Specified Domain, Class Notation Figure 14.8: Property hasColor With Specified Domain and Range, Class Notation Figure 14.12: Property Subsetting - Class Notation Figure 14.14: rdfsRange Stereotype Notation - Class Notation for RDF Property Figure 14.23: owl:Cardinality - Restricted Multiplicity in Subtype Figure 14.13 «rdfsDomain» Stereotype Notation - Class Notation for RDF Property Figure 14.27: Property Redefinition for owl:allValuesFrom Using Classes Figure 14.28: Property Redefinition for owl:hasValue Using Classes Maybe others (any showing rdfsDomain/Range are probably incorrect) These should be changed to dependencies, per the discussion in Santa Clara, and the definition of RDFSDomain and RDFSRange stereotypes changed accordingly.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Eliminate UML::Class as a base class for RDF properties, modify the notation for rdfs:domain and rdfs:range to use dependencies rather than associations, and add a capability for surrogate property definition, where the surrogate notation uses UML::Class with dependencies linking the surrogates back to the AssociationClass(es) that define the base property. Clarify text defining the notation for RDF property (and OWL object and datatype properties) as appropriate.
    Note: The revisions described below should be applied prior to application of the changes for Issue 12563.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 14.1.3.5

  • Key: ODM11-123
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13941
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    RDFStatement is defined as a metaclass, without a stereotype, in the UML profile for RDF, which is not allowed in UML 2. The definition requires revision to include a stereotype.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Resolved to the resolution of 16495.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 14.2.8.1

  • Key: ODM11-122
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13940
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Currently, the specification of owl:DataRange uses a UML::Enumeration, which requires all of the data values that make up the enumeration to be enumeration literals. In all other places in the profile, literal strings are used to represent literals, yet one cannot use literal strings to build up data ranges given the current definition (i.e. something that is a literal string cannot also be an enumeration literal).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Resolved to the resolution of 16498.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

NamespaceDefinition is defined as a metaclass, without a stereotype

  • Key: ODM11-121
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13938
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    NamespaceDefinition is defined as a metaclass, without a stereotype, in the UML profile for RDF, which is not allowed in UML 2. The definition requires revision to include a stereotype.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 27 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a fairly straightforward correction, as described in the resolution, below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Appendix A, Section A.3

  • Key: ODM11-120
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13937
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The set of XML Schema Datatypes defined for use with the UML profiles for RDF and OWL currently have a base class and stereotype of UML::LiteralString, <<typedLiteral>>. These elements actually represent classes of datatypes, and for use with the profile should be classified by UML::DataType, with a stereotype of <<rdfsDatatype>>.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Mon, 18 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Revise Table A.5 in Appendix A, Section A.3, column heading “Base Class & Stereotype” to replace all occurrences of “UML::LiteralString;«typedLiteral»” with “UML::Datatype;«rdfsDatatype»”.

    Revise Table A.5 in Appendix A, Section A.3, column heading “Description, Constraints” to replace all occurrences of “datatypeURI” with “uriRef”. Note that there were also copy/paste errors in the original table (Description, Constraints column), with respect to the name of the datatype and URI provided in each row – this has also been addressed in the revised table, below.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 10.9.3

  • Key: ODM11-119
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13075
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SAP AG ( Jens Müller)
  • Summary:

    In section 10.9.3 the specification uses the association name NamespaceForNamespaceDefinition. However, Figure 10.9 uses the name NamespaceDefinitionForNamespace. In addition I noticed that not all figures are vector images (some are). With respect to copying and pasting it would be nice if all images were vector images (example: Figure 10.2 in contrast to Figure 10.3)

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The correct association name is NamespaceDefinitionForNamespace.
    The erroneous section 10.9.3 was removed as part of the resolution to issue 18861

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 10.2.2

  • Key: ODM11-118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13074
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SAP AG ( Jens Müller)
  • Summary:

    In the fifth line of the OCL expression the specification says: ...self.oclIsTypeOf(RDFSLiteral)... I think it should be: self.oclIsKindOf(RDFSLiteral), otherwise there will be constraint errors if you for example create an instance of PlainLiteral. In the seventh line of the very same OCL expression the specification says: ...self.isTypeOf(RDFSLiteral)... I think it should be: self.oclIsTypeOf(RDFSLiteral) In the second and third line calls to the notEmpty method are made. However, "()" is missing. The same applies to OCL expressions on page 41 and 49!

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    1. In section 10.2.2, replace the following OCL (from resolution to 16495):
    context Node inv DisjointPartition:
    (self.resource->notEmpty() implies self.oclIsTypeOf(ReferenceNode)) and
    (self.oclIsTypeOf(ReferenceNode) or self.oclIsTypeOf(BlankNode) or
    self.oclIsTypeOf(RDFSLiteral)) and
    not (self.oclIsTypeOf(ReferenceNode) and self.oclIsTypeOf(BlankNode)) and
    not (self.oclIsTypeOf(BlankNode) and self.isTypeOf(RDFSLiteral)) and
    not (self.oclIsTypeOf(ReferenceNode) and self.oclIsTypeOf(RDFSLiteral))

    By:
    context Node inv DisjointPartition:
    (self.oclIsTypeOf(ReferenceNode) or self.oclIsTypeOf(BlankNode) or
    self.oclIsKindOf(Literal)) and
    not (self.oclIsTypeOf(ReferenceNode) and self.oclIsTypeOf(BlankNode)) and
    not (self.oclIsTypeOf(BlankNode) and self.isKindOf(Literal)) and
    not (self.oclIsTypeOf(ReferenceNode) and self.oclIsKindOf(Literal))

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

RDFProperty, RDFObjectProperty, and RDFDatatypeProperty shouldn't apply to classes

  • Key: ODM11-133
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13986
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    RDFProperty, RDFObjectProperty, and RDFDatatypeProperty shouldn't apply to classes. RDFProperty has Class has a base type, but classes aren't properties. This affects Figure 14.2 (Property hasColor - Class Notation Without Specified Domain or Range) where a class (that is not an association) is used as a property, and the sentence above Figure 14.8 (Property (hasColor With Specified Domain and Range, Class Notation).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close to the resolution for 13977, which corrects this figure and the related text.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency 3

  • Key: ODM11-132
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13985
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency 3. The comment in the previous issue also applies to Figure 14.27 (Property Redefinition for owl:allValuesFrom Using Classes), and the sentence under Figure 14.6 (Property hasColor Without Specified Domain, Class Notation).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close to the resolution for 13977, which corrects this figure and the related text.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency 2

  • Key: ODM11-131
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13984
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency 2. When rdfsDomain/Range are changed to be based on dependencies, see previous issue, Figure 14.23 (owl:Cardinality - Restricted Multiplicity in Subtype) will no longer work. Dependencies cannot have multiplicities or be redefined. This figure should be removed

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close to the resolution for 13977, which includes deletion of this figure.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

RDFGlobalProperty shouldn't apply to classes

  • Key: ODM11-130
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13983
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    RDFGlobalProperty shouldn't apply to classes. RDFGlobalProperty has Class has a base type, but classes aren't properties. This is inconsistent with the rest of the description of RDFGlobalProperty.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Eliminate UML::Class as a base class for RDFGlobalProperty, as follows

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

owlValue and allValuesFrom 2

  • Key: ODM11-129
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13982
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    owlValue and allValuesFrom 2. The paragraph under Figure 14.19 (Figure 14.19 - Property Redefinition For owl:allValuesFrom With Association Classes) says the owlValue stereotype may be applied to an association, but the base class of owlValue is Property. It also says the multiplicity of the allValueFrom property can be set by the modeler, but it can't, the multiplicity is defined in the standard.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue and a number of others related to representation of restrictions in OWL have been addressed via extensive changes in the resolution to issue 12563. As a part of that resolution «owlValue» was eliminated entirely, making this issue moot.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Figure 14.19 is property subsetting

  • Key: ODM11-128
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13981
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 14.19 is property subsetting. Figure 14.19 (Figure 14.19 - Property Redefinition For owl:allValuesFrom With Association Classes) is property subsetting rather than redefinition. The lower association should be hasBrightColor, rather than has hasColor, with

    {subsets Hascolor}

    . It should be moved to the section on rdfsSubpropertyOf, it's not an example of allValuesFrom.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue and a number of others related to representation of restrictions in OWL have been addressed via extensive changes in the resolution to issue 12563. As a part of that resolution Figure 14.19 (now 14.26) was replaced, making this issue moot.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

owlValue and allValuesFrom

  • Key: ODM11-127
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13980
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    owlValue and allValuesFrom. The stereotype owlValue has property allValuesFrom, but the rest of the section, including the title, only describes someValuesFrom and owl:hasValue. Why is the allValuesFrom property needed on owlValue?

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue and a number of others related to representation of restrictions in OWL have been addressed via extensive changes in the resolution to issue 12563. As a part of that resolution, the «owlValue» stereotype was eliminated altogether, making this issue moot.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Figure 14.10 missing property subsetting

  • Key: ODM11-126
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13979
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 14.10 missing property subsetting. Figure 14.10 (Property Subsetting, Unidirectional Association) should have

    {subsets follows}

    under the chases end label.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close to the resolution for 13977, which includes a revision for this figure.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

I propose that the following properties are owned by the Association

  • Key: ODM11-141
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16037
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There is a mutual dependency between RDFWeb and RDFBase since, for example, RDFBase::URIReference owns a Property owningNamespace typed by RDFWeb::Namespace. I propose that the following properties are owned by the Association:

    • URIReference ::namespace
    • URIReference ::fragmentIdentifier
    • Triple::document
    • Triple::ontology
  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:


    Resolved through 18861.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

In Annex F the use of OWLClass::/isClassKind: and OWLClass::/hasRestrictionKind is not sufficient

  • Key: ODM11-140
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16035
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In Annex F the use of OWLClass::/isClassKind: and OWLClass::/hasRestrictionKind is not sufficient to avoid the need for large numbers of multiply-inherited classes e.g. IndividualOWLIntersectionClass since isClassKind does not capture the specific properties of the subclass e.g. OWLintersectionOf. Furthermore isClassKind should not be derived (in the same way isSymmetric should not be derived). To avoid the large number of multiple-inherited class a generic association OWLClass::relatedClass[0..*] would need to be added – which would stand in for OWLintersectionOf, OWLunionOf, OWLcomplementOf depending on the value of isClassKind. And another association to Individual for OWLoneOf. And it gets still messier to try to capture all the relationships of OWLRestriction. However the larger question is whether all this multiple inheritance is needed : since, as I understand it, all these subclasses of OWLClass will only be instantiated by anonymous classes, and it does not make sense that anonymous classes could also be reified as Individuals/Properties.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

OWLClass::isClassKind:OCLClassKind breaks convention that ‘is’ at the start of properties is used to indicate Booleans

  • Key: ODM11-139
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16034
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The property OWLClass::isClassKind:OCLClassKind (introduced in Annex F) breaks the convention that ‘is’ at the start of properties is used to indicate Booleans. The name ‘classKind’ or ‘hasClassKind’ (for consistency with ‘hasRestrictionKind’ would be more appropriate

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

It would be preferable for isDeprecated to be non-optional with a default value of false.

  • Key: ODM11-138
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16033
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    It would be preferable for isDeprecated to be non-optional with a default value of false. Likewise the Booleans added in Annex F such as isSymmetric

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

multiple inheritance for MOF shown in Figure F.4

  • Key: ODM11-137
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16032
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The multiple inheritance for MOF shown in Figure F.4 results in PropertyOWLClass and IndividualPropertyOWLClass having 2 distinct properties called isDeprecated inherited from OWLClass and OWLProperty – which is an error in MOF (and UML). Either they should be redefined in the subclasses or one of the original properties renamed – depending on whether the same element can be separately deprecated as a property and as a Class).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

In the OWL metamodel the Restriction Cardinality elements should own their TypedLiteral

  • Key: ODM11-136
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16031
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In the OWL metamodel the Restriction Cardinality elements should own their TypedLiteral (i.e. the associations Cardinality, MaxCardinality, MinCardinality should be composite)

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:


    Resolved through 19071

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

The PrimitiveTypes in the metamodel XMI file are instances of Class not PrimitiveType

  • Key: ODM11-135
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16030
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The PrimitiveTypes in the metamodel XMI file are instances of Class not PrimitiveType

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Resolved through 18835.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

rdfs:Literal

  • Key: ODM11-134
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14425
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Need capability to say that the type of a property, when specified without an explicit domain or range, an alternative to an anonymous class might be rdfs:Literal
    The statement is made that the profile uses an anonymous class, analagous to owl:Thing ..., which is only appropriate if the user intends the property to be an object property in OWL. For completeness, include rdfs:Literal to support datatype properties as well.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Revise the text under Description in section 14.1.7.1 as follows.
    In the second sentence of the second paragraph, which begins, “For RDF properties that are defined without specifying a domain or range,” change
    …”the profile uses an anonymous class (analogous to owl:Thing in OWL ontologies) for the “missing” end class.
    to
    …”the profile allows users to
    • use an anonymous UML::Class, stereotyped by «rdfsClass», that is either the RDFS library class representing rdfs:Resource (analogous to owl:Thing in OWL ontologies) or rdfs:Class, for the “missing” domain end class, and
    • either of those options or a UML::Datatype, stereotyped by «rdfsDatatype», library element representing rdfs:Literal, as appropriate, for the “missing” range end class.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Table 16.12, disjoint

  • Key: ODM11-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10890
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Table 16.12, disjoint. In 16.2.3 (More Advanced Concepts), Table 16.12, last row. UML supports declaring disjoint classes.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Table 16.12, AllValuesFrom

  • Key: ODM11-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10888
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Table 16.12, Thing

  • Key: ODM11-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10887
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Table 16.11

  • Key: ODM11-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10886
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove last row of table 16.11
    Replace the second to last line in table 16.12 with the following:
    Classes as instances (in OWL Full)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Derivation.

  • Key: ODM11-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10884
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete paragraph in section 16.2.3 after the XML starting with the words “UML allows a property”. It misrepresents the kinds of things that can be done in OWL and what can be done with a UML composition.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Mandatory properties

  • Key: ODM11-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10879
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Disjoint.

  • Key: ODM11-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10876
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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).

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below. (Note: this issue actually refers to the seventh paragraph)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Individuals

  • Key: ODM11-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10875
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below. (Note: this issue actually refers to the sixth paragraph)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Translation of binary associations.

  • Key: ODM11-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10873
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below. (Note: This issue actually refers to the forth paragraph.)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Association member ends

  • Key: ODM11-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10871
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Subproperites and redefintion

  • Key: ODM11-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10867
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Issue actually references the second paragraph after table 16.7. Replace text as described below.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Identifiers

  • Key: ODM11-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10865
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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")

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Formal structure

  • Key: ODM11-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10850
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Formal structure. Under Figure 16.1, the first sentence refers to "formal structure". Should explain what this is. Is it the metamodel?

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace text as described below.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Annex D.4 sets

  • Key: ODM11-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10846
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed to the resolution of issue 18836, delete Annex D, "Extending the ODM" from the specification

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Figure D.3 notation

  • Key: ODM11-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10844
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed to the resolution of issue 18836, delete Annex D, "Extending the ODM" from the specification.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML Thing 2

  • Key: ODM11-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10874
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • 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.

  • Reported: ODM 1.0b2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ODM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete last sentence of the fifth paragraph. (Note: this issue actually refers to fifth paragraph)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT