tl;dr: add rule-owl-prop-iso191502AssociationName and rule-owl-prop-iso191502Aggregation to the proposed Shapechange configuration files, update the proposed data models with the new config.
The Abstract Test suite contains a list of all requirements for every module and potential ADE, including example conformance tests and test methods.
For example Abstract Test A.1 states:
Requirement
/req/core/classes
Test purpose
To validate that the Implementation Specification correctly implements the UML Classes defined in the Conceptual Model.
Test method type
Manual Inspection
Test method
For each UML class defined or referenced in the Core Package:
Validate that the Implementation Specification contains a data element which represents the same concept as that defined for the UML class.
Validate that the data element has the same relationships with other elements as those defined for the UML class. Validate that those relationships have the same source, target, direction, roles, and multiplicies as those documented in the Conceptual Model.
Validate that the data element has the same properties (attributes) as those specified for the UML class. Validate that those properties have the same name, definition, type, and multiplicity of those documented in the Conceptual Model.
Validate that the properties of the data element include those of all superclasses of the UML class as documented in the Conceptual Model. Validate that those properties have the same name, definition, type, and multiplicity of those documented in the Conceptual Model.
Validate that the associations represented for the data element include those of all superclasses of the UML class as documented in the Conceptual Model. Validate that those representations have the same source, target, roles, and multiplicity of those documented in the Conceptual Model.
Validate that the Implementation Specification enforces all constraints imposed on the UML class by the Conceptual Model.
Although the current proposed CityGML OWL model meets most of these test requirements, we are not currently transforming association roles to OWL. According to ISO19150-2, associations should be transformed into rdfs:Properties (which we currently do). However association roles - such as aggregations and compositions - do not exist in OWL. ISO 19150-2 suggests storing the semantics of these roles as annotations properties iso19150-2:aggregationType and iso19150-2:associationName.
These can be fixed by adding the shapechange rules rule-owl-prop-iso191502AssociationName and rule-owl-prop-iso191502Aggregation to the proposed configuration.
tl;dr: add
rule-owl-prop-iso191502AssociationNameandrule-owl-prop-iso191502Aggregationto the proposed Shapechange configuration files, update the proposed data models with the new config.In order to be officially 100% conformant to the CityGML 3.0 standard ALL conformance requirements must be satisfied (CityGML Implementation Specification conformance statement):
The Abstract Test suite contains a list of all requirements for every module and potential ADE, including example conformance tests and test methods.
For example Abstract Test A.1 states:
Although the current proposed CityGML OWL model meets most of these test requirements, we are not currently transforming association roles to OWL. According to ISO19150-2, associations should be transformed into rdfs:Properties (which we currently do). However association roles - such as aggregations and compositions - do not exist in OWL. ISO 19150-2 suggests storing the semantics of these roles as annotations properties
iso19150-2:aggregationTypeandiso19150-2:associationName.These can be fixed by adding the shapechange rules
rule-owl-prop-iso191502AssociationNameandrule-owl-prop-iso191502Aggregationto the proposed configuration.