<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_20150316</b><br>
<b>2015-03-16 GMT-08:00</b><br>
<b>[09:06] </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>[09:07] </b>anonymous morphed into Conrad<br>
<b>[09:08] </b><b>TerryLongstreth: </b>Till - if you're talking,
I can't hear you<br>
<b>[09:09] </b><b>Alexander Knapp: </b>Same with me ;-)<br>
<b>[09:14] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: please use UML
2.5, the relation between properties, compositions, attributes and
associations is clearer there.<br>
<b>[09:14] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: UML 2.5. is
essentially stable<br>
<b>[09:15] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: a property being
composite means 1) instances cannot be owned by more than one
owner, 2)...<br>
<b>[09:16] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander: we need to be
able to track the owner, if we have the instance<br>
<b>[09:17] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: properties by
themselves can be composites<br>
<b>[09:17] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander: composite
properties can only take part in binary associations (and only in
one end)<br>
<b>[09:18] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: not both
association ends can be composite, and there cannot by cycles at
runtime<br>
<b>[09:22] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: if member end
that is not navigable is composite, things a bit hacky<br>
<b>[09:22] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander will changes
signatures accordings 2.5<br>
<b>[09:23] </b><b>Conrad: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/Beta2/">http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/Beta2/</a><br>
<b>[09:25] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: in uniqueness
assumptions, member end names and attribute names are separated -
but they are all properties. Alexander: this is a mistake<br>
<b>[09:27] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: if they are one
separate ends, two properties can have the same name<br>
<b>[09:28] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Conrad: if they (e.g.
both named a) should be the same property, you would have to
subtype both end classes with the same superclass, the latter
having the same property a<br>
<b>[09:43] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>p.25 typo c'<br>
<b>[09:44] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>what is the use of \tau's
in parameters of query operations?<br>
<b>[09:47] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander: it is possible
to specify multiplicities of operation parameters (but this is not
possible in our semantics currently). However, the whole issue is
out of scope, because we do not cover state.<br>
<b>[09:49] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>but we could let the
operation be partial, and it is simply undefined in cases where
the multiplicity constraints are not met<br>
<b>[09:51] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Alexander: we could add
sentences with multiplicities for operations. Does the
satisfaction condition hold? Till: yes.<br>
<b>[09:52] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>(this was about slide 26)<br>
<b>[09:53] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>p.28 a is not a predicate<br>
<b>[09:54] </b>anonymous morphed into Conrad1<br>
<b>[10:02] </b><b>TerryLongstreth: </b>Very Impressive! I hope
OMG appreciates the work you all have done here.<br>
<b>[10:07] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>sample translation of
Alexander's class diagram to Common Logic:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/UMLCD.het">http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/UMLCD.het</a><br>
<b>[10:12] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>source:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/inconsistencies.uml">http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/inconsistencies.uml</a><br>
<b>[10:13] </b><b>FabianNeuhaus: </b>update from elisa: "The
OntoIOp discussion is on our agenda first thing after
announcements, etc. on Thursday morning, currently 9:30 on the
agenda, although we may start it a few minutes early and extend
into the coffee break"<br>
<b>[10:16] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>strictly speaking, object
diagrams are not like ABoxes. However, the are used like ABoxes.
So we could pretend that they indeed are. We just should not call
this a model...<br>
<b>[10:18] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>Fabian: we could use DOL
to connect a UML class diagram with a database of instances
(represented in, say, Common Logic, or an object diagrams with
non-standard semantics)<br>
<b>[10:23] </b><b>TillMossakowski: </b>next meeting March 30th,
same time<br>
<b>[10:24] </b>List of attendees: Alexander Knapp, ConradBock,
FabianNeuhaus, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski<br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>