Ontology Definition Metamodel Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Ontology Definition Metamodel — Open Issues

  • Acronym: ODM
  • Issues Count: 22
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions


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

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

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