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

Closed Issues

  • Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
  • Name: odm-rtf
  • Issues Count: 79

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
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ODM11-153 Annex F has been superceded by SMOF ODM 1.0 ODM 1.1 Resolved closed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

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