W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

RE: UFDTF Metamodeling Document

From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:06:06 -0500
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1a8701c83299$5dcbedd0$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV>


Peter,

 >  I'm assuming that you mean the OWL Metamodel in:
 >  
 >  Ontology Definition Metamodel
 >  OMG Adopted Specification
 >  OMG Document Number: ptc/2007-09-09

Yes, that's the latest, see Chapters 10 and 11 at
http://doc.omg/ptc/2007-09-09.

 >  I just took a look at that document and, frankly, it is so full of
 >  inaccuracies that there is no reason whatsoever to align with it.

Could you give some examples from the OWL and RDF metamodels?  If you'd
like to file issues on them, see
http://www.omg.org/technology/agreement.htm.
They must be filed by February 22, 2008 to require the task force to
address them before issuing the finalized specification.  You can also
become involved in the task force, and since Alcatel-Lucent is an OMG
member, you can have voting privileges with a simple motion made at the
next meeting (December 14th, I can arrange for the motion if you like).

Just as background, several of the authors of the OWL and RDF/S
metamodels in ODM are members of the OWL working group and were members
of WebOnt (you might recall being invited a number of times to review
them).  The OWL metamodel in particular underwent significant peer
review, within OMG as well as by the broader user community (academic
and industrial), and is successfully implemented in a number of open
source and commercial applications.  I'm sure they would welcome
specific suggestions for improvement.

Conrad
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 15:06:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT