<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<tt>
<b>Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20150112</b><br>
<b>2015-01-12 GMT-08:00</b><br>
<b>[08:03] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Report from OMG meeting
(Fabian)<br>
<b>[08:04] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Generally, the feedback
was positiv and encouraging. Industry people see the potential for
industry.<br>
<b>[08:04] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Noone seems to have read
the proposal though. Probably this will change with the final
proposal.<br>
<b>[08:05] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>The only critical point
is the integration of UML class diagrams and its integration with
other languages. Various useful scenarios have been discussed. UML
class diagrams are extrmely important to OMG.<br>
<b>[08:06] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>The problem is that UML
class diagrams do not have a formal model-theoretic semantics.<br>
<b>[08:06] </b><b>TerryLongstreth: </b>I've just left a meeting
with another standards group, and one of the other attendees is
from the Planetary Data System (PDS) project at JPL. He was much
interested in OntoIop. Can I share one of our drafts with him, or
can one of you contact him about it?<br>
<b>[08:07] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Tne OMG people did not
like ignoring the issue, nor using the model-theoretic semantics
by Alexander Knapp. The do not want to have different semantics
for UML. There is already fUML.<br>
<b>[08:08] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>However, fUML is an
operational semantics, while for DOL, we need a model-theoretic
semantics.<br>
<b>[08:09] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Michael: are OMG people
open for extending the fUML axiomatization (in Common Logic)?<br>
<b>[08:09] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: there is no
mapping from UML class diagrams to CL axioms.<br>
<b>[08:09] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>We would need to come up
with such a mapping.<br>
<b>[08:11] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian convinced them
that we need a model-theoretic semantics- Several fUML people in
the room offered their help.<br>
<b>[08:11] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>We should not take
something from the literature, but base the work on fUML.<br>
<b>[08:12] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Open questions: how would
the collaboration work? Where/how is the resulting document to be
published?<br>
<b>[08:14] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>An easy way of providing
a mechanism for OMG people to check our translation from UML class
diagrams to CL would be to implement it (say in Hets), such that
they can make experiments.<br>
<b>[08:14] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>This would be a better
way for them, compared with providing an institution.<br>
<b>[08:17] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>And we would get an
institution by "borrowing" model theory from CL via the
translation.<br>
<b>[08:18] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Rick: How does OntoIop
plan to address parametricty available through UML and not
available in fUML?<br>
<b>[08:18] </b><b>rick: </b>I need to check my audio setting<br>
<b>[08:20] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Rick: in section 17 of
the UML standard you find templates. They are not used so
frequently.<br>
<b>[08:23] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>templates could be
handled on the level of theory morphisms (or generic
specifications provided in CASL). That is, they are treated not as
part of institution/logic, but as part of the structuring
mechanisms on top of institutions.<br>
<b>[08:24] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Rick: treating
parametricity in higher-order logic has some benefits<br>
<b>[08:25] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: strategically, it
makes sense to stick with the fUML subset of UML. If we want to
put something in that is outside fUML, we will re-open their
discussions, causing delay.<br>
<b>[08:26] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: OMG people are
aware that UML is a complex multi-headed beast - not even the
exact boundaries of UML class diagrams are clear.<br>
<b>[08:28] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Rick: has done some work
on functional abstraction that could be useful for OntoIOp.<br>
<b>[08:29] </b>anonymous morphed into ConradBock<br>
<b>[08:31] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>we should focus on
producing a draft of the translation of UML class diagrams to
Common Logic as soon as possible, so that we can provide it for
the OMG meeting mid/end of march (which means that we need to
submit mid February).<br>
<b>[08:34] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: we could simplify
the fUML axiomatisation by omitting the aspect of time, which is
not needed for the axiomatization of classes.<br>
<b>[08:35] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Michael: the PSL ontology
can be used (as it is in fUML) for capturing behaviour.<br>
<b>[08:39] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: OMG people
probably won't mind, as long as the result is consistent with
fUML.<br>
<b>[08:40] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Note that we *only*
promise to cover *UML class diagrams*.<br>
<b>[08:47] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Ed Seidewitz's paper also
contains meta predicates like class(C) ("c is a class"). </tt><tt><tt>Do
we want them in?</tt><br>
<b>[08:48] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>It seems that we need
these, e.g. for typing purposes.<br>
<b>[08:49] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Different topic: what is
the status of the translation paper? Appendix to the DOL standard?
to fUML?<br>
<b>[08:49] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: OMG people say
that this needs to be discussed. For now, it can be an informative
annex. In the long term, it might migrate.<br>
<b>[08:50] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: we don't want to
wait until there is an update of fUML.<br>
<b>[08:54] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>We decide to develop the
translation of UML class diagrams into Common Logic as an
informative annex of the DOL standard. Deadline is February 23rd
(four weeks before the Reston OMG meeting starts).<br>
<b>[08:56] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: at the Reston OMG
meeting, we should organise a meeting with the revision task force
(RTF).<br>
<b>[08:59] </b>anonymous morphed into JimLogan<br>
<b>[09:01] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>The DOL standard draft is
freely available at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/tillmo/DOL">https://github.com/tillmo/DOL</a> Feel free to
share it with anyone.<br>
<b>[09:01] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>next meeting: January 26<br>
</tt><br>
<div style="background-color: white; word-wrap: break-word;"><span
id="msg65"></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; word-wrap: break-word;"><span
id="msg66">
<pre style="display:inline" wrap="soft"><b>List of attendees: ChristophLange, ConradBock, FabianNeuhaus, JimLogan, MichaelGruninger, OliverKutz, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, RickMurphy, MihaiCodescu</b></pre>
</span></div>
</body>
</html>