-
Key: ODM11-124
-
Legacy Issue Number: 13977
-
Status: closed
-
Source: NIST ( Mr. 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
ODM11 — rdfsDomain/Range should be based on dependency.
- Key: ODM11-124
- OMG Task Force: Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) 1.1 RTF