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.
11
stars
0
forks
source link
General concern from AHG06 eGovernment regarding ISO 19109 Rules for application schema #450
Background:
From report on non-relational database technology:
this standard is also specific to UML, but also includes the GeneralFeature Model (GFM) as one of the metamodels
separate GFM from the "Rules for Application Schema"
show how the GFM can be applicable in OWL - this may involve
making some changes to the GFM, or at least to the detailed UML
expression of it. Essentially, we want the "top level" GFM to be
equally implementable in OWL & UML; if a UML flavour/profile can
support lossless creation of OWL, then that could be a way.
clarify (here or in ISO 19103) the distinction between "concept
modelling" (or "conceptual modelling") and logical data modelling.
Note: the OGC Architecture Board is actively looking at this.
Discuss the meaning of Application Schema (focus on logical model,
data specifications https://isotc211.geolexica.org/concepts/15/)
versus Conceptual model (focus on 'pure' semantics, information
specifications). Note that TC 211 use of "application schema" is
(currently) specific to "UML model of an application"> discuss the
place of "instance models"
discuss the question of instances that belong to more than one
feature type. (Note: this relates to the current question issue in ISO
19103/19109 vs UML, as to whether specialised classes default to
disjoint or not.)
Possibly discuss handling n-ary relationships & the fundamental
structure of relations (same as, same place as, 'converse')
Many iso standards are based on fixed schema’s,
The 19109 has attribute binding to feature type, is that not too limiting
related to non relational technologies?
Is a feature always defined as set of properties? Is that flexible enough?
Proposed action from AHG06:
This standard is specific to UML. However, the standard also includes the General Feature Model (GFM) as one of the metamodels - separate GFM from the "Rules for Application Schema". There is a need for showing how the GFM can be applicable in OWL, this may involve making some changes to the GFM, or at least to the detailed UML expression of it. This needs further investigation. Essentially, if we want the "top level" GFM to be equally implementable in OWL & UML; if a UML flavour/profile can support lossless creation of OWL, then this could be a way forward.
ISO 19150-2 will have rules for creating OWL/RDF for application schemas.
In general. If the GFM moves to 19103 there is nonot specific need to do anything with 19109
Background: From report on non-relational database technology:
Many iso standards are based on fixed schema’s, The 19109 has attribute binding to feature type, is that not too limiting related to non relational technologies? Is a feature always defined as set of properties? Is that flexible enough?
Proposed action from AHG06: This standard is specific to UML. However, the standard also includes the General Feature Model (GFM) as one of the metamodels - separate GFM from the "Rules for Application Schema". There is a need for showing how the GFM can be applicable in OWL, this may involve making some changes to the GFM, or at least to the detailed UML expression of it. This needs further investigation. Essentially, if we want the "top level" GFM to be equally implementable in OWL & UML; if a UML flavour/profile can support lossless creation of OWL, then this could be a way forward.
ISO 19150-2 will have rules for creating OWL/RDF for application schemas.
In general. If the GFM moves to 19103 there is nonot specific need to do anything with 19109