ODM11 — Definition of RDF Property and its use in the figures is inconsistent

From email dated 3/12/2008 from SRI, and as discussed (and documented in the minutes from the ODM FTF2 F2F DC meeting: Section 14.1.7, In Figure 4.3 the line is an "association". However, the specified base classes are "AssociationClass" and "Property". To duplicate this example in Enterprise Architect, it was necessary to define a profile in which the rdfProperty stereotype extend the "Association" metaclass.

This issue and ensuing discussions have led the FTF working group to recognize the need for an additional way to represent an RDF property in UML, that is, reified as a UML::Class, in addition to adding UML::Association to the set of base classes available for modeling RDF properties in the profile.
Tool implementation of AssociationClass (tested in IBM Rational Software Architect, No Magic MagicDraw, and Sparx Enterprise Architect) is unsatisfactory from an RDF/OWL perspective, as one cannot draw free-standing RDF properties (as association classes with an "rdfProperty" stereotype applied) without dragging the default relationships to rdfs:Resource or owl:Thing onto a diagram). In many cases when defining RDF vocabularies, it is desirable to define a property on its own, without specifying any domain or range, but sometimes showing property inheritance. Downstream vocabularies may then further refine these definitions as appropriate.
The proposed resolution is to
§ add UML::Association as a base class for all cases where RDF properties are used in the RDF and OWL profiles
§ add UML::Class as a base class for all cases where RDF properties are used in the RDF and OWL profiles
§ introduce two new stereotypes, "rdfsDomain" and "rdfsRange", to support domain and range property restrictions when UML classes are used to represent RDF properties,