RE: ISSUE-82 (Conrad): Metamodel diagrams in Syntax document should be aligned with OMG ODM

Hello,

To which document are you referring here: the structural specification (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax) or the UML metamodel
(http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/MOF-Based_Metamodel)?

I believe that the UML metamodel document is the proper document to align OWL 1.1 with OMG ODM.

In contrast, I don't think that this should be reflected in the structural specification document. There, we used UML just as a
simple light-weight mechanism for specifying an object model. The main reason for having the object-model based specification was to
ease the life for developers. I have had some positive feedback from the implementers of the new OWL API on this -- they turned this
object model more of less directly into interfaces of the API. Thus, I believe it is important to keep this object model simple, and
I don't consider alignment with OMG ODM in this document appropriate.

If the name "UML" poses problems as such, we can simply remove all references to UML from the structural specification document and
simply call it an "object model".

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of OWL Working
> Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 28 November 2007 18:42
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-82 (Conrad): Metamodel diagrams in Syntax document should be aligned with OMG ODM
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-82 (Conrad): Metamodel diagrams in Syntax document should be aligned with OMG ODM
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
> 
> Raised by: Conrad Bock
> On product:
> 
> The Object Magement Group adopted a metamodel for OWL 1 in the Ontology
> Definition Metamodel (see Chapters 10 and 11 of
> http://doc.omg.org/ptc/2007-09-09).  The OMG metamodel and the UML class
> diagrams in the Syntax document should be aligned.
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 19:28:04 UTC