RE: UFDTF Metamodeling Document

Peter, 

 >  > 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).

 >  How so?  Are those sections not the OMG metamodels for RDF and OWL?

Yes, but the metamodels are in the figures, not the text you commented
on.

 >  If the metamodels are based on fundamental misunderstandings of RDF
 >  and OWL and how they interact is that not a problem?

The question is whether any errors in the text are also in the
metamodel.

 >  >  >  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.

 >  I do agree that having a specification of how OWL ontologies could
 >  be stored is a good idea.  However, in my opinion the OMG metamodel
 >  for OWL are not suitable for this use.

Would be good to have comments on the metamodel (I see them in a later
message, thanks).

 >  The structural specification for OWL in SS&FS is much better, at
 >  least for OWL 1.1.  I would be easy to turn it into a structural
 >  specification for OWL DL that I think would be much better than the
 >  OMG one.

 >  I also think that using the OMG metamodel for RDF would be
 >  detrimental to the use of RDF.

Again, you'd need to justify that with comments on the metamodels.

Conrad

Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 17:00:15 UTC