Re: Comments on structural specification

I take it from your message that you are concerned about the UML
diagrams portions of the "Structural Specification and Functional-Style
Syntax" document.  What about the other parts of the document?

peter


From: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on structural specification (was Re: document pubication schedule)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:55:12 -0700

> 
> Hi Bijan and all,
> 
> The Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) [1] was originally developed to 
> address some of the same issues that you, Boris, and others have 
> identified as the motivation behind the structural specification for OWL 
> 1.1, among others. We agree that this is a really valuable part of the 
> overall language specification, but think that this particular document 
> needs more scrutiny prior to publication from implementors in 
> particular, and are willing to assist with that work, as I mentioned in 
> a previous email. The end result will likely necessitate a revision to 
> the ODM, which should be maintained in sync with the OWL language 
> development process. We think that the OMG should remain the primary 
> home for some of this work, but, just as we did with the recently 
> published ISO Common Logic specification [2], we would be happy to have 
> the diagrams live in both places.
> 
> Some of the areas of disconnect between the current ODM and proposed 
> structural specification include a well-defined relationship with RDF, 
> which Jeremy Carroll, Dave Reynolds, Pat Hayes, Chris Welty, Evan 
> Wallace, and others contributed to the specification.  We also 
> maintained support for OWL Full, which is important for some members of 
> our user base.  There are a number of implementations of the ODM already 
> available, including our Visual Ontology Modeler [3], IBM's Web Ontology 
> Manager and Integrated Ontology Development Toolkit [4] (among other IBM 
> projects), and several open source activities [5, 6, 7].  Thus, the 
> document should be reviewed not only by us (Sandpiper), but by other 
> stakeholders in the OMG community.
> 
> We are comfortable with publication of the model theoretic semantics 
> document, but do not believe that either the structural specification or 
> MOF-based metamodel on which it depends (whose authors are members of 
> the OMG Ontology PSIG, who agree that it is merely a draft, and are 
> interested in participating the work) are ready to be published with 
> working draft status.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Elisa
> 
> [1] http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/06-10-11.pdf
> [2] 
> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39175
> [3] http://www.sandsoft.com/products.html
> [4] http://alphaworks.ibm.com/topics/semantics?open&S_TACT=105AGX01&S_CMP=LP
> [5] http://www.eclipse.org/m2m/atl/usecases/ODMImplementation/
> [6] 
> http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/eodm/docs/articles/EODM_Documentation/
> [7] http://cimtool.org/

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 09:24:54 UTC