W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2005

Re: [OEP] minutes of 5/26 telecon

From: Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 12:04:25 -0700
Message-ID: <429F5839.1050707@sandsoft.com>
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org

Chris,

We used UML association classes specifically for representing RDF 
properties (and thus
OWL properties) in the latest version of the profile for RDFS and OWL in 
the ODM.
I don't have time this afternoon to put a description together, but can 
point you to
(1) the new ODM specification, posted yesterday on the OMG site, which is:
http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/05-04-13.pdf, and (2) the UML superstructure 
specification
on the OMG site, which can be found at 
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2004-10-02.
Association Classes are discussed in section 7.3.4..

If you think it would be useful, for TF members (rather than the entire 
SWBP mailing
list), I'll extract just the profile section from the ODM and send that 
around.  The overall
document is 330 pages, thus lengthy to wade through.  The profile itself 
is ~40 pages. 
Still long, but all new material and relevant to the discussion.  I plan 
to send a
message out more generally about this either today or tomorrow.

Thanks,

Elisa

Christopher Welty wrote:

>Evan or Natasha, can you point us to a decent description of "association 
>classes" in UML and what you think might be needed to translate something 
>in OWL to it?
>
>Aldo, can you describe in a note what you were trying to say about QCRs in 
>the telecon last week.
>
>[Note, btw, that there is no WG telecon this week]
>
>-Chris
>
>Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
>IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA   
> 
>Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
>Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: 
>http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/
>
>
>
>Christopher Welty/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 
>Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>05/26/2005 04:54 PM
>
>To
>public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>cc
>
>Subject
>[OEP] minutes of 5/26 telecon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Minutes of 5/26/2005 OEP telecon 1900 UT
>
>Attendees: Chris_Welty, natasha_noy, Mike_Uschold, Evan_Wallace, 
>aldo_gangemi
>IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/26-swbp-irc
>
>We discussed the latest n-ary relations editors draft of 24 May 
>[http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n-aryRelations-2nd-WD.html], 
>
>and Mike's extensive review.  Numerous minor changes and some rewordings 
>suggested.  The main discussion centered on the name for Use Case 3, 
>currently "network of individuals".  We tossed around the idea of using 
>"Events", but convinced ourselves this was too specific, as the use case 
>applies in general to n-ary relations for which the arguments are a) 
>individuals and b) no individual is clearly the "subject". 
>
>We resolved to take the question as homework.  Suggestions welcome.
>
>We discussed the "unintended models" point as well.  It turns out that the 
>
>comment about RDF treating two triples with the same S,P,O as "the same" 
>is not accurate.  As a result, the point is more general than just n-ary 
>relations, and is also more complicated than the bullet describes. We 
>resolved to remove this bullet and move that point to the "pitfalls" note, 
>
>with perhaps a forward reference to it.
>
>Finally, we discussed the proposed standard vocabulary for reified 
>relationships.  Natasha suggested that specific vocabulary for mapping OWL 
>
>to other languages does not belong in this note, in particular the 
>"argNum" property in the proposed vocabulary is for mapping n-ary 
>relations to languages that use argument position to encode the role. The 
>"use cases" for this standard vocabulary were 1) tools that treat reified 
>n-ary relationships in some special way and thus need to know which ones 
>they are, and 2) translating OWL & RDF to other languages that support 
>n-ary relations in the syntax.  Chris claimed the vocabulary, with the 
>argNum property, enabled translation to any other language.  Natasha and 
>Evan suggested that UML "association classes" 
>[http://www.agilemodeling.com/style/classDiagram.htm#Figure2] may require 
>something different as well.  This wasn't clear.
>
>We resolved to continue this discussion by email.  The general issue is 
>whether the proposed standard vocabulary should be part of the N-ary note, 
>
>or a separate note, and whether issues of language translation are in 
>scope for the n-ary relations note. Someone (Evan?  Natasha?) will post 
>something describing UML association classes in more detail (or more 
>formally).  Aldo made some points about QCRs, but he had a bad connection 
>and it was difficult to understand - he also promised to post something to 
>
>the list.
>
>Thanks all for the productive discussions.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
>IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA 
> 
>Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
>Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: 
>http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 19:04:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:43 UTC