- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:22:20 -0500 (EST)
- To: conrad.bock@nist.gov
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Conrad Bock" <conrad.bock@nist.gov> Subject: RE: UFDTF Metamodeling Document Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:06:06 -0500 > > 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? For RDF: p35: "URIReferenceNode, BlankNode, and RDFSLiteral form a complete covering of RDFSResource and are pairwise disjoint." Among other problems, there are unnamed resources in RDF. p35: RDFGraphs are unordered sets of triples, not ordered collections of statements. p35: RDFGraphs don't have names. p35: The treatment of reification implies that there is only one triple with a given subject, predicate, and object over all RDF graphs, and that its reification status is the same in all RDF graphs. p37: A typed literal does not have two names. p37: Literals are not assigned a meaning by interpretations. p38: Literals have special status, and are not replacable by URIs. I gave up listing problems after page 36. The RDF section has a number of fundamental misconceptions, including a severe case of mixing syntax and semantics. For OWL: I started looking more closely at the start of the OWL section: p63: "Not all RDF graphs are valid OWL graphs, however". WRONG! p67: Naming non-atomic descriptions is not allowed in OWL DL. p69: "OWLAllDifferent ... links an individual to an idiomatic class." WRONG! p70: "... individuals in OWL have a 'default type' (i.e., owl:Thing)". WRONG! p70: "Multiple inheritance is also supported." WRONG. But I soon gave up. I have no idea what possible use the RDF and OWL metamodels could be put to. > 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). Well, I'm not sure that a comment along the lines of: This has too many inaccuracies to be accepted. would be appreciated. > 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. Well, again, I'm not sure that a suggestion like "Start over" would be welcome, but that's the best advice I can give. > Conrad peter
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 15:48:59 UTC