<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_20150209</b><br>
<b>2015-02-09 GMT-08:00</b><br>
<b>[07:58] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>please find the slides at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/Slides-OntoIOp.pdf">http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/Slides-OntoIOp.pdf</a><br>
<b>[08:00] </b>anonymous morphed into FabianNeuhaus<br>
<b>[08:01] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>anyone on Skype?<br>
<b>[08:02] </b><b>TerryLongstreth: </b>I'm trying to get off of
another conference, will dial in shortly.<br>
<b>[08:03] </b>anonymous morphed into Conrad<br>
<b>[08:04] </b><b>ChristophLange: </b>Hi all, UML is not my
field, but @TillMossakowski I will look into Ontohub issue 1066
meanwhile.<br>
<b>[08:11] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: operations should
not be subsumed under the term "properties".<br>
<b>[08:11] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander: why not stick
to UML terminology and speak of attributes and (query) operations?<br>
<b>[08:12] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander: the parameters
of the operations are also of form tau[c]<br>
<b>[08:14] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>We should change the
property declaration into an operation declaration (for queries):
c.o(x_1 : \tau_1[c_1], \ldots, x_n : \tau_n[c_n]) : \tau[c'] for
operations; c.p : \tau[c']<br>
<b>[08:15] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>properties are just c.p :
tau[c']<br>
<b>[08:16] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>i.e. attributes<br>
<b>[08:16] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>are multiplicities
allowed in return values of operations?<br>
<b>[08:18] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Operations could have out
or in-out parameters; check whether this is possible also for
query operations. Check whether return parameters are unique.<br>
<b>[08:21] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>compositions are
separated from normal properties, because they have a special
semantics<br>
<b>[08:22] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Stick with the current
UML2 terminology.<br>
<b>[08:25] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>"A single parameter may
be distinguished as a return parameter" (UML Superstructure
Specification 2.4.1, p. 123)<br>
<b>[08:28] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Composites are always
binary. In associations we do not cover composites, just specify
the owner roles.<br>
<b>[08:31] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Make it possible to have
associations for declaring two properties as inverses of each
other.<br>
<b>[08:37] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>The meta-properties
should be better explained in the document.<br>
<b>[08:37] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Introduce "annotations"
not for classifiers, but for properties to make clear their
intention.<br>
<b>[08:40] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Choose different names
for associations in Fig. E.1.<br>
<b>[08:48] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander: the semantics
of an association is a set of individuals (not of sets, bags
etc.).<br>
<b>[08:49] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>But if you have a binary
association, and fix one of the ends, you get a function with a
type, and this type may involve sets, bags etc.<br>
<b>[08:50] </b><b>Conrad: </b>See semantics of associations in
11.5.3, especially the paragraph beginning "For an Association
with N memberEnds".<br>
<b>[08:51] </b><b>Conrad: </b>From the UML spec: For an
Association with N memberEnds, choose any N-1 ends. Let the
Property that constitutes the other end be called oep, so that the
Classifiers at the chosen N-1 ends are the context for oep (see
9.5.3). Associate specific instances with the context ends. Then
the collection of links of the Association that refer to these
specific instances will identify a set of instances at oep. The
value represented by oep (see 9.5.3) is a collection calculated
from this set as follows: All of the instances in the set occur in
the collection, and nothing else does. If oep is marked as unique,
each instance will occur in the collection just once, regardless
of how many links connect to it. If oep is marked as nonunique,
each instance will occur in the collection once for each link that
connects to it. If oep is marked as ordered, the collection will
be ordered in accordance with the ordering information in the
links. The cardinality of this collection is its size. The
multiplicity of oep constrains this cardinality, or in the case of
qualified associations, the size of the collection partition that
may be associated with a qualifier value.<br>
<b>[08:51] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>hence, the semantics of
associations is not just a set of tuples, but also contains
additional information giving the order in the sequences etc.
obtained in this way.<br>
<b>[08:54] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: the semantics
could be defined as a set of functions (say, from signals to
tau[tracksetion] and vice versa) that enjoy the property that each
function leads to the same set of tuples.<br>
<b>[08:56] </b><b>Conrad: </b>Confirming Till's comment "hence"
above, from UML spec: When one or more ends of the Association are
ordered, links carry ordering information in addition to their end
values.<br>
<b>[08:57] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander: the ordering
in the lists that you get are completely unspecified. Hence, you
can get the projection functions to list by just returning the
set, arbitrarily converted to a list<br>
<b>[08:59] </b><b>Conrad: </b>Conrad: The ordering of property
values isn't arbitrary. UML has actions for adding values at
certain points in a list. Getting values from a property will
reflect the way they are added.<br>
<b>[08:59] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Thanks, Conrad. We'll
have to add at least a comment to this effect.<br>
<b>[09:01] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>where is buml:Sequence
specified?<br>
<b>[09:01] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrand: this is probably
a typo<br>
<b>[09:02] </b><b>MichaelGruninger: </b>need to leave now ...<br>
<b>[09:24] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>corrected slides:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/Slides-OntoIOp.pdf">http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/Slides-OntoIOp.pdf</a><br>
<b>[09:27] </b><b>FabianNeuhaus: </b>sorry, I will have to go
soon. I have some new feature requests for DOL, but I do that on
the email list<br>
<b>[09:30] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Composite aggregation is
a strong form of aggregation that requires a part instance to be
included in at most one composite at a time (UML Superstructure
2.4.1, p. 38).<br>
<b>[09:36] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: one and the same
track can own one and the same signal through different
composition relations. Hence, the axiom on slide 13 can stay as it
is.<br>
<b>[09:43] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>p.16, last axiom: needs
to be reformulated: (r x z), and (member y z)<br>
<b>[09:46] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: use different
variables for sets and individuals<br>
<b>[09:46] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Multiplicity constraints
for composite properties better without a special "!"<br>
<b>[09:50] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Sorry, I have to leave,
trying to catch my train... Thanks for the comments!<br>
<b>[10:06] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>We should try to complete
the UML to Common Logic translation until Feb 23. Then my student
Martin Glauer will have enough time to implement the translation
into Hets before the OMG meeting (which starts on March 23).<br>
<b>[10:07] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>next meeting: Feb 23,
same time. Topic is third iteration of the UML to Common Logic
translation.<br>
<b>[10:07] </b>List of attendees: Alexander Knapp,
ChristophLange, ConradBock, FabianNeuhaus, MichaelGruninger,
OliverKutz, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, MihaiCodescu<br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>