Re: Comments on structural specification

As far as I know the only extra bits of information in the diagrams
relate to whether certain repeating constructs in the grammar can be
considered to be sets or sequences, if your tool wants to implement some
sort of structural comparison between bits of stored syntax.  This is,
solely informative, as far as I am concerned.

peter


From: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on structural specification
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:56:30 -0700

> Hi Peter,
> 
> Your point is well taken -- we've been working through the syntax to see 
> what the implications are for our own tools, and expect to have a better 
> idea later this week.  There is clearly information encoded in the 
> diagrams that is not present in the written syntax, but we're still 
> trying to understand the impact.   I hope to provide more feedback once 
> we've completed the analysis.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Elisa
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >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 15:27:23 UTC