[ontoiop-forum] ontoiop_20150316: Chat Transcript

[Tara Athan]

Some minor questions, comments:

Is the target language for the UML-> CL translation CL Edition2?

The conversion <http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/UMLCD.het> 
appear to be using CURIE abbreviations, without defining these prefixes.
CL Edition 1 does not have a prefixing mechanism.
The latest draft of CL2 
(http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/cl/attachments/20150130/fdd66dc5/attachment-0001.pdf) 
does include a prefix declaration syntax (cl:prefix), which is most 
conveniently used inside an explicit text construction (cl:text) .
Note that a sequence of CL sentences, without an explicit (cl:text ...) 
wrapper,  is no longer considered a CL text in Edition 2.

Regards, Tara

On 3/17/15 5:22 AM, Till Mossakowski wrote:
> *Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20150316*
> *2015-03-16 GMT-08:00*
> *[09:06] **TillMossakowski: *please find the slides at 
> http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/Slides-OntoIOp.pdf
> *[09:07] *anonymous morphed into Conrad
> *[09:08] **TerryLongstreth: *Till - if you're talking, I can't hear you
> *[09:09] **Alexander Knapp: *Same with me ;-)
> *[09:14] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: please use UML 2.5, the relation 
> between properties, compositions, attributes and associations is 
> clearer there.
> *[09:14] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: UML 2.5. is essentially stable
> *[09:15] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: a property being composite means 
> 1) instances cannot be owned by more than one owner, 2)...
> *[09:16] **TillMossakowski: *Alexander: we need to be able to track 
> the owner, if we have the instance
> *[09:17] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: properties by themselves can be 
> composites
> *[09:17] **TillMossakowski: *Alexander: composite properties can only 
> take part in binary associations (and only in one end)
> *[09:18] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: not both association ends can be 
> composite, and there cannot by cycles at runtime
> *[09:22] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: if member end that is not 
> navigable is composite, things a bit hacky
> *[09:22] **TillMossakowski: *Alexander will changes signatures 
> accordings 2.5
> *[09:23] **Conrad: *http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/Beta2/
> *[09:25] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: in uniqueness assumptions, member 
> end names and attribute names are separated - but they are all 
> properties. Alexander: this is a mistake
> *[09:27] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: if they are one separate ends, 
> two properties can have the same name
> *[09:28] **TillMossakowski: *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
> *[09:43] **TillMossakowski: *p.25 typo c'
> *[09:44] **TillMossakowski: *what is the use of \tau's in parameters 
> of query operations?
> *[09:47] **TillMossakowski: *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.
> *[09:49] **TillMossakowski: *but we could let the operation be 
> partial, and it is simply undefined in cases where the multiplicity 
> constraints are not met
> *[09:51] **TillMossakowski: *Alexander: we could add sentences with 
> multiplicities for operations. Does the satisfaction condition hold? 
> Till: yes.
> *[09:52] **TillMossakowski: *(this was about slide 26)
> *[09:53] **TillMossakowski: *p.28 a is not a predicate
> *[09:54] *anonymous morphed into Conrad1
> *[10:02] **TerryLongstreth: *Very Impressive! I hope OMG appreciates 
> the work you all have done here.
> *[10:07] **TillMossakowski: *sample translation of Alexander's class 
> diagram to Common Logic: 
> http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/UMLCD.het
> *[10:12] **TillMossakowski: *source: 
> http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mossakow/inconsistencies.uml
> *[10:13] **FabianNeuhaus: *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"
> *[10:16] **TillMossakowski: *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...
> *[10:18] **TillMossakowski: *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)
> *[10:23] **TillMossakowski: *next meeting March 30th, same time
> *[10:24] *List of attendees: Alexander Knapp, ConradBock, 
> FabianNeuhaus, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de
> Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum
> Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum
> Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
> Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20150317/501a8e8b/attachment.html>