AHG3 recommendation re ISO 19103

ISO-TC211 / StandardsTracker

This GitHub repository lets you - our users - log and track issues that you find with our standards and other document. Tag the issue with the standard or standards effected; we will assign it to the relevant group(s) within TC 211.

12 stars 0 forks source link

AHG3 recommendation re ISO 19103 #406

Open PeterParslow opened 3 years ago

PeterParslow commented 3 years ago

at present, this describes the use of UML: discuss other CSLs for - other approaches, or perhaps to define a cross-approach CSL
introduce OWL alongside UML as an alternative CSL and/or create an "OWL profile of UML"
provide some criteria for choosing between CSLs (at least, UML vs OWL). View: UML can be a good start (even) for a graph database, but usually you need to add the semantics (and a UML profile for doing that would help)
Update and reinforce the distinction between different levels of abstraction, taking into account the work being done in OGC’s Architecture DWG

See TC 211/N 5561 for more details.

CIB Resolution 2021-02 should start the revision of ISO 19103:2015; the scope (N 5563) currently mentions implementing the learnings from AHG3.

PeterParslow commented 3 years ago

AHG3 report also asked:

Are conceptual schema languages inherently constrained to (or at least better for) particular approaches? Or Is it possible to have one foundational approach that can be implemented in all these ways? Overall, it seems conceivable that a foundational (top level) ontology could then be expressed in both TC 211/OGC UML and Web Ontology Language.

Wikipedia lists seventeen existing "upper ontologies", at least two of which are being considered by the UK's National Digital Twin team. One is published in an ISO standard, but is specific to industrial automation systems (although may have wider application). There is no clear choice for language in which to express such a top level ontology; options include:

OMG's Meta Object Facility (MOF™) - the meta-metamodel for UML, also used for metamodels for EXPRESS and RDF/OWL
W3C's draft Manchester Syntax - actually a compact syntax for OWL
natural language, e.g. English

heidivanparys commented 4 months ago

Regarding the CSL:

Consensus that OWL as an alternative CSL is out of scope for ISO 19103. This should be dealt with in WG 1 or on a higher level.

see https://github.com/ISO-TC211/ISO19103/issues/34#issuecomment-1137292066.

Regarding the level of abstraction, see https://github.com/ISO-TC211/ISO19103/issues/85

And see of course ISO/FDIS 19103 for the current state of the document (on which only editorial comments can be made).

My judgement is that this issue can be closed.

PeterParslow commented 4 months ago

I would suggest that rather than just closing it, PMG & GOM considers how best to treat "OWL as a CSL"* within the TC211 standard set. Without some statement, there is a small but increasing part of our community who will see us as irrelevant.

Note: ISO/DIS 19109 makes a few mentions of OWL:

*as distinct from "OWL as an encoding" for e.g. code lists. Is this ISO 19150-2 (as stated in ISO/DIS 19109 7.3.3 & 8.10.2)? [I will comment on that in ISO/DIS 19109, as the current ISO 19150-2 introduction suggests not]

JanHjelmager commented 4 months ago

The issue is reopened as an issue for GOM and PMG to consider how to handle.