search

belgif / thematic

ICEG: Thematic Working Groups
11 stars 5 forks source link

Remarks regarding Class Channel #59

Open MarcBruyland opened 2 years ago

MarcBruyland commented 2 years ago

(1) the name of the relation "hasInput" is not so clear; why not replace it by a relation between Channel and Evidence e.g. "viaChannel" (2) likewise ChannelPreference could be simplified by a relation between Channel and Evidence e.g. "preferredViaChannel" (3) missing property in textual description: identifier (4) cardinality of the relation with PublicOrganization 0-* instead of 0-1

bahimc commented 2 years ago

Thanks for your comments, @MarcBruyland.

  1. As per the definition, the evidence is provided independently from the channel, while the requirement may vary based on the channel
  2. Could you elaborate?
  3. We have addressed it.
  4. Are you referring to the owned by relationship? If so, it has already been addressed.
MarcBruyland commented 2 years ago

(1) I read the diagram as follows: Channel - hasInput - Requirement It would be clearer to say for instance: Requirement - isObtainedVia - Channel or Requirement - isMetBy - Channel or Channel - isNeededFor - Requirement or ... (2) As it is modelled now -a PublicService is linked to 0..n Channels -a Channel has 0..n Purposes Examples of Purposes: information, activation of the service, assistance, appeal, .. In the definition of Purpose an example of a deprecated channel is given: "you can introduce you tax declaration in paper but you're not encouraged to do so". For me in this example, we have a PublicService "collect Taxes", channels "BPOST"/"Internet" and the preferred channel is "Internet". I would propose to define a property peferredChannel as a relation from PublicService to Channel. (3) ok (4) indeed "ownedBy". The cardinality still needs to be changed (a PublicOrganization can have more than 1 channel)

LouisMatha commented 2 years ago

Thanks for your comment @MarcBruyland.

  1. In the latest version of the model the has input relationship between Channel and Evidence has been renamed as 'via channel' as you suggested. However, there is currently no relationship between Channel and Requirement. Could you please elaborate on what you suggest?
  2. We understood that the ChannelPreference class between Channel and Purpose would suit your use case. For the Public Service "collect Taxes", you have multiple Channels with different purposes (information, activation of the service ...). In this case, for the purpose "activation of the service", the Prefered Channel would be Internet. Would this solution suit your use case?
  3. Indeed. We have foreseen the case when the Channel is owned by multiple Public Organization but not the case when a Public Organization has multiple channels. We will modify the model accordingly.
MarcBruyland commented 2 years ago

(1) indeed there is an updated diagram the relation Channel - viaChannel - Evidence (0-) could be replaced by Channel - transmits - Evidence (0-)

(2) in class Channel I don't see a property relating to Purpose or ChannelPreference; likewise, in class Purpose, I don't see a relation to Channel or ChannelPreference I do see 2 properties in ChannelPreference: hasChannel, hasPurpose Should not there be an additional property in ChannelPreference indicating that the combination Channel-Purpose is the preferred combination ? Should not there be a ternary relation including PublicService ? I can imagine that for a public service and a given purpose, there can be multiple channels, but only 1 preferred channel. As it is stated now a channel can have multiple purposes one of which is the preferred one independent of the public service. The cardinality of the preferred combination channel-purpose is not so clear ? Is there only 1 preferred combination or can you have several preferred combinations ?

(3) a model technical question: in the model you see a relation PublicService(1-1) - hasChannel - Channel (0-) (direction of the arrow is from PublicService to Channel) In reality the relation between PublicService and Channel is a N-M relation. Does that mean you will add a relation in opposite direction Channel (1-1) - isUsedBy- PublicService(0-) ? Does the arrow in the relation imply that the name of the relation can be found in the class from where the arrow starts ?