search

INSPIRE-MIF / 2017.2

Repository for action 2017.2 on alternative encodings
6 stars 11 forks source link

Should we include simplification based on UML implementation models? #26

Closed michellutz closed 5 years ago

michellutz commented 6 years ago

Simplification rules could be implemented purely in the UML-to-encoding rules, or alternatively, in a first step, an implementation model could be manually developed in UML, and the UML-to-encoding rules could then be applied to that implementation model.

The latter was already foreseen in the data specifications template (for the UML-to-GML mapping):

implementation_model

cportele commented 6 years ago

Just a quick comment: The implementation model in UML does not have to be developed manually, it could also be derived in an automated way - this is basically what the ShapeChange Transformations (#22) do.

PalmJanssen commented 6 years ago

Good to hear this about ShapeChange. I still had the question open if the ShapeChange flattener produced a UML implementation model or an adapted (flattened) GML application schema. Of course it can also do the latter but I understand now that it also produces a UML. Perfect.

cportele commented 6 years ago

@PalmJanssen To be precise: ShapeChange internally uses a model specification that is based on a UML profile that covers all the information that we have seen and that supports the General Feature Model. When a model is transformed, the result is a new model in the same specification. Typically that derived model is processed to generate implementation artefacts, but you may also generate a EA file (target: UML model) or an XML file that can be used as input to ShapeChange later (target: Model export - faster and avoid the 32-bit limitation that comes with EA).

PalmJanssen commented 6 years ago

@cportele Still perfect :)

heidivanparys commented 6 years ago

For the discussion, I would like to add this diagram (from the document mentioned in #28) that describes an approach, as also used by ShapeChange:

billede

So it is overall seen a two-step approach:

MarieLambois commented 6 years ago

I think that an intermediate UML model would be a ice way to document the simplification. If Shapechange can generate it, it is perfect !

michellutz commented 6 years ago

[2017.2 meeting 2018-09-28] It was agreed that intermediate simplification steps at the UML model level should be included and might be useful to document the applied simplifications.