From conrad.bock at nist.gov Thu Oct 8 17:27:14 2015 From: conrad.bock at nist.gov (Bock, Conrad) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:27:14 +0000 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML Message-ID: Till et al, Took a quick look and the interpretation of composition is still wrong, see attached. Apologies for not having looked at this earlier. Will review more carefully for the Oct 15 deadline. Conrad -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dol-revised-ad-15-08-01-annex-E-composition-CB.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 313985 bytes Desc: dol-revised-ad-15-08-01-annex-E-composition-CB.pdf URL: From math.semantic.web at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 17:46:06 2015 From: math.semantic.web at gmail.com (Christoph LANGE) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:46:06 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56168FBE.2010701@gmail.com> Hi all, did I miss something? Bock, Conrad on 08.10.2015 17:27: > Took a quick look and the interpretation of composition is > still wrong, see attached. Apologies for not having looked > at this earlier. Will review more carefully for the Oct 15 > deadline. I did not receive, nor can I see in the list archive, an email that called for final comments by October 15. Or was this a specific request just to Conrad? Cheers, Christoph -- Dr. Christoph Lange, Enterprise Information Systems Department Applied Computer Science @ University of Bonn; Fraunhofer IAIS http://langec.wordpress.com/about, Skype duke4701 ? Web Intelligence Summer School ?Question Answering with the Web? Saint-?tienne, FR. Apply by 4 July @ https://wiss.univ-st-etienne.fr/ From conrad.bock at nist.gov Thu Oct 8 17:47:36 2015 From: conrad.bock at nist.gov (Bock, Conrad) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:47:36 +0000 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: <56168FBE.2010701@gmail.com> References: <56168FBE.2010701@gmail.com> Message-ID: Christoph, > I did not receive, nor can I see in the list archive, an email that > called for final comments by October 15. I heard this from Fabian and others at the OMG meeting. They decided to have another revision to fix up some things. Conrad From till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Thu Oct 8 18:05:07 2015 From: till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:05:07 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: References: <56168FBE.2010701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56169433.7060009@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear Christoph, dear all, sorry, we have missed to communicate this (actually, the September OMG meeting just has taken place...): At the OMG meeting in September, there were still many comments, so we decided again to move the decision to the December meeting. This means that we have to submit the final version at November 7. Note that changes to this version will then only be possible in the FTF (finalization task force) process, which is quite detailed and tedious. Therefore, we have decided to produce a new version for review by the OMG review panel by October 15, in order to ensure that no major changes will be necessary after the November 7 version. Now actually October 15 is already next week! So all, please have a look at the remaining issues at https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/issues, and do the necessary changes, and/or close the issues if they have been done. @Conrad: thanks for your comments, will have a look. Best, Till Am 08.10.2015 um 17:47 schrieb Bock, Conrad: > Christoph, > > > I did not receive, nor can I see in the list archive, an email that > > called for final comments by October 15. > > I heard this from Fabian and others at the OMG meeting. They decided > to have another revision to fix up some things. > > Conrad > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 From till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Fri Oct 9 13:51:44 2015 From: till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:51:44 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5617AA50.5000203@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear Conrad, in response to your comments, Alexander Knapp writes: Thanks for the comments. ?Not sure I'm reading this correctly, but it seems to say the properties involved in a composition association are properties of m, whereas they are usually properties of the classes at the ends of the association.?: It is not intended to express ownership here. ?Properties can be composed without being member ends of an association. The UML 2.5 spec describes aggregation in the Property subclause (9.5.3), without constraining the properties to be member ends of associations. The phrase quoted here describes a composite property with ("grouping its") values. Feel free to ask Ed and others, this is well known to be the interpretation of the spec, and is implemented in tools.?: Yes, indeed, a property itself could be composite without being a member end of an association. I only now get the semantics of such a declaration, say, c.p : \tau?[c?] with p composite (if I understand correctly): it would be that if o is an instance of c, and o.p are the values for property p, these values are parts of o (and, hence, deleted if o is deleted ? which we do not discuss); each such value can only be contained (as a part) in a single object. Currently, we only discuss the case where a composite property is a member end of an association, but with this clarification we could also handle the ?non-member end? case by adding to the definition of ?attributes? that p may also be decorated by a filled lozenge and adding the ownership semantics. In any case, the text starting with ?In UML, each Property may have AggregationKind composite? should either clarify that we only discuss the ?member end? case or could be skipped altogether. (The quote with ?grouping its? is now on page 110 of the UML 2.5 specification, the constraint for member ends of binary association on page 218.) All the best, Till Am 08.10.2015 um 17:27 schrieb Bock, Conrad: > Till et al, > > Took a quick look and the interpretation of composition is > still wrong, see attached. Apologies for not having looked > at this earlier. Will review more carefully for the Oct 15 > deadline. > > Conrad > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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: From conrad.bock at nist.gov Fri Oct 9 14:46:45 2015 From: conrad.bock at nist.gov (Bock, Conrad) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:46:45 +0000 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: <5617AA50.5000203@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <5617AA50.5000203@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: Alexander, > > [Conrad] "Not sure I'm reading this correctly, but it seems to say > > the properties involved in a composition association are > > properties of m, whereas they are usually properties of the > > classes at the ends of the association.": > [Alexander] It is not intended to express ownership here. Thanks. > [Conrad]"Properties can be composed without being member ends of an > association. The UML 2.5 spec describes aggregation in the Property > subclause (9.5.3), without constraining the properties to be member > ends of associations. The phrase quoted here describes a composite > property with ("grouping its") values. Feel free to ask Ed and > others, this is well known to be the interpretation of the spec, and > is implemented in tools.": > [Alexander] Yes, indeed, a property itself could be composite without > being a member end of an association. I only now get the semantics > of such a declaration, say, c.p : \tau'[c'] with p composite (if I > understand correctly): it would be that if o is an instance of c, and > o.p are the values for property p, these values are parts of o (and, > hence, deleted if o is deleted - which we do not discuss); each such > value can only be contained (as a part) in a single object. That's right. > Currently, we only discuss the case where a composite > property is a member end of an association, but with this > clarification we could also handle the "non-member end" case by > adding to the definition of "attributes" that p may also be decorated > by a filled lozenge and adding the ownership semantics. In any case, > the text starting with "In UML, each Property may have > AggregationKind composite" should either clarify that we only discuss > the "member end" case or could be skipped altogether. The first solution would be better if you have time, since it covers more of UML, but if coverage of composition is left restricted to associations, it would be enough to remove the text saying that UML limits composite properties to be member ends of associations. > (The quote with "grouping its" is now on page 110 of the UML 2.5 > specification, the constraint for member ends of binary association > on page 218.) The text comment on the constraint should be "The only associations that may be aggregate are binary", which is what the OCL says. I can see how the current text could be read as restricting aggregation to associations. Conrad From till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Tue Oct 13 10:59:44 2015 From: till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:59:44 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: <56169433.7060009@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <56168FBE.2010701@gmail.com> <56169433.7060009@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <561CC800.6090804@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear all, sorry, I mixed things up. The correct version is: - the OMG review panel will send their comments until October 15th, - then we will have time until November 7 to revise the document. That said, it still makes sense to have a look at the issues and start with changes right now, see https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/issues, All the best, Till Am 08.10.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Till Mossakowski: > Dear Christoph, dear all, > > sorry, we have missed to communicate this (actually, the September OMG > meeting just has taken place...): > At the OMG meeting in September, there were still many comments, so we > decided again to move the decision to the December meeting. > This means that we have to submit the final version at November 7. > Note that changes to this version will then only be possible in the > FTF (finalization task force) process, which is quite detailed and > tedious. > Therefore, we have decided to produce a new version for review by the > OMG review panel by October 15, in order to ensure that no major > changes will be necessary after the November 7 version. > > Now actually October 15 is already next week! > So all, please have a look at the remaining issues at > https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/issues, and do the necessary changes, > and/or close the issues if they have been done. > > @Conrad: thanks for your comments, will have a look. > > Best, Till > > Am 08.10.2015 um 17:47 schrieb Bock, Conrad: >> Christoph, >> >> > I did not receive, nor can I see in the list archive, an email that >> > called for final comments by October 15. >> >> I heard this from Fabian and others at the OMG meeting. They decided >> to have another revision to fix up some things. >> >> Conrad >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 From conrad.bock at nist.gov Thu Oct 15 21:47:47 2015 From: conrad.bock at nist.gov (Bock, Conrad) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:47:47 +0000 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: <5617AA50.5000203@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <5617AA50.5000203@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: Till, et al, Here are my comments on the UML appendix. Let me know if there are any questions/comments, can discuss if needed. Conrad -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dol-revised-ad-15-08-01-annex-E-CB.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 434483 bytes Desc: dol-revised-ad-15-08-01-annex-E-CB.pdf URL: From till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Sun Oct 18 15:10:27 2015 From: till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:10:27 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.79): Mon 2015.10.19 Message-ID: <56239A43.5010701@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear all, tomorrow we will have the next OntoIOp telcon. The topics are: - feedback from OMG review panel (see attached files) - revision of the standard (deadline is November 9) - open issues at https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/issues All the best, Till = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.79) - Mon 2015.10.19 = * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 am EDT / 3:00pm GMT / 5:00pm CEST / 5:00pm SAST / 12:00pm KST / 15:00 UTC ** ref. world clock - http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=19&year=2015&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20151019 Remarks: * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of their participation at the session. * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute Dial-in: * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# * Skype: "join.conference" ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) Talk to you all then! _________________________________________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dol-revised-ad-15-08-01-annex-E-Conrad-Bock.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 434482 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DOL-evaluation-Ed-Seidewitz.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 130560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Sun Oct 18 18:08:24 2015 From: till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] **Earlier start time** Re: OntoIOp teleconference (n.79): Mon 2015.10.19 In-Reply-To: <56239A43.5010701@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <56239A43.5010701@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <5623C3F8.604@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear all, Michael Gruninger reports a time clash with the IAOA Executive Council meeting (which is 1130 - 1300 EDT tomorrow). Hence, we need to start one hour earlier with OntoIOp: * start-time: 7:00am PDT / 10:00 am EDT / 2:00pm GMT / 4:00pm CEST / 4:00pm SAST / 11:00pm KST / 14:00 UTC ** ref. world clock - http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=19&year=2015&hour=7&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 Best, Till Am 18.10.2015 um 15:10 schrieb Till Mossakowski: > Dear all, > > tomorrow we will have the next OntoIOp telcon. > > The topics are: > - feedback from OMG review panel (see attached files) > - revision of the standard (deadline is November 9) > - open issues at https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/issues > > All the best, > Till > > > = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.79) - Mon 2015.10.19 = > * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 am EDT / 3:00pm GMT / 5:00pm CEST / > 5:00pm SAST / 12:00pm KST / 15:00 UTC > ** ref. world clock - > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=19&year=2015&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 > > * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. > * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20151019 > > > Remarks: > > * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless > otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of > their participation at the session. > > * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) > - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute > > Dial-in: > * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > * Skype: "join.conference" > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding > up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your > phone, skype-out or google-voice and > call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & > UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ > ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be > under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" > ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the > call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) > > > Talk to you all then! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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: From till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Mon Oct 19 13:49:25 2015 From: till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:49:25 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: References: <5617AA50.5000203@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <5624D8C5.7070305@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear Conrad, many thanks for your comments! Here are my replies: > Why not define sets as restricted bags (bags with no duplicates), like you did with ordered sets as restricted sequences? Should be at least: (forall (x) (if (form:Set x) (form:Bag x)) plus no-duplicate restriction. Note that I did *not* define ordered sets as restricted sequences. Instead, I copied the theory of sequences and modified it. In particular, the axiom // no element can be inserted twice (forall (x s) (if (from:ordered-set-member x s) (= (form:ordered-set-insert x s) s))) cannot be used for sequences. If wanted, I can try to have a similar sharing of theories between sets and bags. > Did you intend to support infinite sets? Not that this requires it (only allows it), but UnlimitedNatural in UML includes an infinitely large value. See comment about multiplicity in E.4. No, only finite sets are supported, assuming that system snapshots are always finite. Instead of UnlimitedNatural, we could also use natural numbers without an infinitely large value. What would be the name of such a type? > Why not just (forall (x s) (form:set-member x (form:set-insert x s))) ? The original axiom is: (forall (x y s) (iff (form:set-member x (form:set-insert y s)) (or (= x y) (form:set-member x s)))) This is much stronger. In particular, from it you can derive non-memberships, like (not (form:set-member 2 (form:set.insert 1 form:empty-set))), provided that 1 is not equal to 2. > Not sure I'm reading this correctly, but it seems to say the properties involved in a composition association are properties of m, whereas they are usually properties of the classes at the ends of the association. We have changed this, see attached corrected PDF. > Properties can be composed without being member ends of an association. The UML 2.5 spec describes aggregation in the Property subclause (9.5.3), without constraining the properties to be member ends of associations. The phrase quoted here describes a composite property with ("grouping its") values. Feel free to ask Ed and others, this is well known to be the interpretation of the spec, and is implemented in tools. We have changed this, see attached corrected PDF. > Are the labels n2s, etc, association names? If so they should be capitalized. If they are property names, they should be closer to one of the classes at the end of the line. Yes, they are association names. We will capitalize them. > How are unlimited upper bounds represented? This could be the absence of a bound in DOL, I guess. In UML, absence of a bound defaults to 1, so there's no ambiguity translating to DOL this way. Where does UnlimitedNatural come in? Yes, unlimited upper bounds are represented by absence of bounds here. All the best, Till Am 15.10.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Bock, Conrad: > Till, et al, > > Here are my comments on the UML appendix. Let me know if there > are any questions/comments, can discuss if needed. > > Conrad > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dol.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2457270 bytes Desc: not available URL: From math.semantic.web at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 14:52:31 2015 From: math.semantic.web at gmail.com (Christoph LANGE) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:52:31 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] **Earlier start time** Re: OntoIOp teleconference (n.79): Mon 2015.10.19 In-Reply-To: <5623C3F8.604@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <56239A43.5010701@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5623C3F8.604@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <5624E78F.8090208@gmail.com> Hi Till, Till Mossakowski on 18.10.2015 18:08: > Hence, we need to start one hour earlier with OntoIOp: as I _might_ have another phone call in this timeslot, I'm not sure I'll be able to join. However, _we_ can continue as usual: if anything about URIs, the DOL Ontology, etc. needs to be done, please assign issues to me and let me know the deadline. Cheers, Christoph -- Dr. Christoph Lange, Enterprise Information Systems Department Applied Computer Science @ University of Bonn; Fraunhofer IAIS http://langec.wordpress.com/about, Skype duke4701 ? Web Intelligence Summer School ?Question Answering with the Web? Saint-?tienne, FR. Apply by 4 July @ https://wiss.univ-st-etienne.fr/ From conrad.bock at nist.gov Mon Oct 19 15:40:08 2015 From: conrad.bock at nist.gov (Bock, Conrad) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:40:08 +0000 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Call for final comments on DOL, UML In-Reply-To: <5624D8C5.7070305@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <5617AA50.5000203@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5624D8C5.7070305@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: Thanks, Till, > > Why not define sets as restricted bags (bags with no duplicates), > > like you did with ordered sets as restricted sequences? Should be > > at least: (forall (x) (if (form:Set x) (form:Bag x)) plus > > no-duplicate restriction. > Note that I did *not* define ordered sets as restricted > sequences. Instead, Then I'm probably misread this: oms ordered-sets = sequences with to the uninitiated looks like ordered sets builds on sequences. > In particular, the axiom > // no element can be inserted twice > (forall (x s) > (if (from:ordered-set-member x s) > (= (form:ordered-set-insert x s) s))) > cannot be used for sequences. Agreed, it's a restriction on sequences, and would only apply to ordered sets as a specialization of sequences, not sequences in general. > I copied the theory of sequences and modified it. > If wanted, I can try to have a similar sharing of theories between > sets and bags. Sharing is better than copying, if you have the time to do it. > > Did you intend to support infinite sets? Not that this requires it > > (only allows it), but UnlimitedNatural in UML includes an > > infinitely large value. See comment about multiplicity in E.4. > No, only finite sets are supported, assuming that system snapshots are > always finite. Instead of UnlimitedNatural, we could also use natural > numbers without an infinitely large value. What would be the name of > such a type? Looks like I was wrong, UnlimitedNatural means what what you said above. From Clause 8.2.4 (Notation) in UML 2.5: Note that "unlimited" denotes the lack of a limit on the value of some element (such as a multiplicity upper bound), not a value of "infinity." Not sure if DOL requires any change for this or not, see next. > > How are unlimited upper bounds represented? This could be the > > absence of a bound in DOL, I guess. In UML, absence of a bound > > defaults to 1, so there's no ambiguity translating to DOL this > > way. Where does UnlimitedNatural come in? > Yes, unlimited upper bounds are represented by absence of bounds here. OK. > > Why not just (forall (x s)(form:set-member x (form:set-insert x s))) ? > The original axiom is: > (forall (x y s) > (iff (form:set-member x (form:set-insert y s)) > (or (= x y) > (form:set-member x s)))) > This is much stronger. In particular, from it you can derive non- > memberships, like (not (form:set-member 2 (form:set.insert 1 > form:empty-set))), provided that 1 is not equal to 2. I see. Would be clearer to have membership and non-membership in separate axioms: (forall (x s)(form:set-member x (form:set-insert x s))) (forall (x s1) (iff (form:set-member x s1) (exists (s2) (= s1 (form:set-insert x s2))))) but I guess it's all the same. > > Not sure I'm reading this correctly, but it seems to say the > > properties involved in a composition association are properties of > > m, whereas they are usually properties of the classes at the ends > > of the association. > We have changed this, see attached corrected PDF. It isn't changed in the update, but my understanding from Alexander is the dot notation in property declarations (eg, m.p) here does not imply p is an attribute of m. BTW, the term "property declaration" appears here for the first time. The terms "property" and "attribute" are synonyms in UML, would be clearer to use a different word. > > Properties can be composed without being member ends of an > association. The UML 2.5 spec describes aggregation in the Property > subclause (9.5.3), without constraining the properties to be member > ends of associations. The phrase quoted here describes a composite > property with ("grouping its") values. Feel free to ask Ed and > others, this is well known to be the interpretation of the spec, and > is implemented in tools. > We have changed this, see attached corrected PDF. The text doesn't seem to be changed. It still explains UML incorrectly. Alexander seemed to have found this problem already in his reply. > > Are the labels n2s, etc, association names? If so they should be > > capitalized. If they are property names, they should be closer to > > one of the classes at the end of the line. > Yes, they are association names. We will capitalize them. Would be good to mention it in the text. BTW, the update still has an issue written into a comment: //The same-set relation is true for sets that have the same members. // but: why not replace same-set with = ? on p 89, near the bottom. You could file it with the FTF if you don't want to address it in the submission. From till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Mon Oct 19 18:24:28 2015 From: till at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:24:28 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] ontoiop_20151019: Chat Transcript Message-ID: <5625193C.7040400@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> *Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20151019* *2015-10-19 GMT-08:00* *[06:02] *anonymous morphed into Martin Glauer *[06:30] *anonymous morphed into Stephan Guenther *[07:00] *anonymous morphed into Conrad *[07:00] *Conrad morphed into ConradBock *[07:00] **TillMossakowski: *Martin, Stephan, are you also on the call? *[07:05] **Stephan Guenther: *yes. I just entered. *[07:10] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: define a composition declaration as an association declaration that has a composite property *[07:10] **Martin Glauer: *Yes, I am here, too *[07:16] **TillMossakowski: *In UML, both are of class \uml{Property}.} Hence, attribute declarations are kind of \emph{property declarations}. Another kind of property declarations is introduced through member end declarations below.) *[07:31] **TillMossakowski: *possibly interested tool vendors: Papyrus *[07:33] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad can talk to them *[07:33] **TillMossakowski: *possible subtopics of DOL: refinement, language translation *[07:36] **TillMossakowski: *business committee will only ask a quite vague question, namely whether the tool vendor will implement DOL *[07:36] **TillMossakowski: *one of the conformance points should be easy to reach *[07:50] **ConradBock: *http://solitaire.omg.org/ *[07:57] **TerryLongstreth: *Can #251 be dealt with in tandem with the observation about composition decl above? *[08:04] **Stephan Guenther: *bye *[08:04] **TillMossakowski: *please work all on your tickets, see https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/issue *[08:04] **TillMossakowski: *next meeting: in two weeks, same time *[08:30] *List of attendees: ConradBock, FabianNeuhaus, Martin Glauer, Stephan Guenther, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: