Re: UFDTF Metamodeling Document

Just to follow up on Conrad's response, I would really encourage you to 
submit comments to the issues list, which would help us improve the 
specification in the short time remaining.

I think some of the issues you raised are legitimate, I disagree with 
others, and some comments may stem from lack of knowledge of MOF, 
particularly its purpose as a repository/persistence representation. 
Most are not comments on the metamodels themselves but on the related 
text, which can be fixed where appropriate. Metamodel changes are 
harder, due to the stage in the standardization process and number of 
implementations, but possible, depending on their nature. We should 
simply work through them, in the OMG forum rather than on this list, and 
rather than requiring another three years to develop an entirely new set 
of models.

I would also like to say that the use cases we've been discussing in the 
user facing documents TF are essential to teasing out metamodel 
requirements, which in turn, should have beneficial input to the 
language development.  We worked synergistically with the Common Logic 
language developers in creating the metamodel for CL, which had clear 
impact on the language itself.  The CL metamodel in the ODM 
specification is the metamodel in the ISO CL specification. Any approach 
that provides a smorgasbord of diagrams -- UML conceptual view in the 
structural specification, a different metamodel in a W3C note, and a 
third international standard metamodel in the ODM, will only serve to 
confuse and divide the user community. 

Elisa

Conrad Bock wrote:

>Peter, 
>
> >  > Could you give some examples from the OWL and RDF metamodels?  
> >  
> >  For RDF:
>
>Thanks, these are not comments on the metamodel, which is what we're
>concerned with, but I'll forward them to OMG for discussion there (BTW,
>the list is odm-ftf@omg.org, which you can also send mail to also).
>
> >  Well, I'm not sure that a comment along the lines of:
> >  
> >  	This has too many inaccuracies to be accepted.
> >  
> >  would be appreciated. 
>
>That would be true.  :) However, the concrete comments would be.  Bear
>in mind it's quite late in the game, it would have been helpful to have
>your input with the others during webont.
>
>
>
> >  I have no idea what possible use the RDF and OWL metamodels could be
> >  put to.
>
>Boris put it very well in
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0085.html
>where he says it is very useful to have a data storage specification for
>the language (his message would make quite a nice ad for OMG,
>actually!).  It is important that such a storage specification be
>generally agreed if the stored ontologies are to be widely accessible.
>It isn't good for W3C and OMG to adopt different data storage
>specifications for OWL.
>
>Conrad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>