search

isa-camss / CAV

The Core Assessment Vocabulary represents and defines what an “Assessment” of “assets” is and how to perform the assessment based on “Criteria”. It is a domain-agnostic vocabulary, meaning that it can be used to assess any type of assets.
3 stars 1 forks source link

Statement class #7

Closed guascce closed 3 years ago

guascce commented 4 years ago

"An assessment without resulting statement is considered as a work in progress" is not fully right. The assessment could be cancelled for instance

jseguraf commented 3 years ago

Yes, the status of the assessment could be categorized to reafirm whether it is in progress or cancelled or whatever, which could be cross-checked with "the fact" that no statement or report has been issued.

Proposal: To add the attribute "status" which would be a code (e.g. In progress, cancelled, deprecated, superseded, accepted, etc.).

costas80 commented 3 years ago

Good point by @guascce. Adding an additional status could be considered (as suggested by @jseguraf), otherwise another approach would be to refine this (and other similar) definitions as follows:

"An assessment without resulting statement(s) is considered as incomplete or a work in progress"

The "incomplete" reference above captures assessments that would be cancelled or abandoned.

The status is interesting as a concept of course but I fear it could end up being an enumeration that could be use case specific. For example the status could also leak workflow concepts given the practices within a specific domain/organisation (e.g. "proposed", "approved", "validated"). As an analogy consider that JIRA workflow statuses are typically subject to customisation for specific projects.

paulakeen commented 3 years ago

The existence of a property 'status' does not link the Core Vocabulary to any particular classification system, but opens the door to do it in the application profiles of the Core Vocabulary. The only rule though is that the term for that property encompasses any kind of classification system that makes sense for the concepts being coded.

Let me give you a 'classic' example: Many data models developed for the EU institutions and MS define the attribute 'NUTS' for classes such as Address and similar. This, in my opinion, is a mistake: the attribute should be termed more generically (like they do in UBL), e.g. 'CountrySubdivisionCode'. This way, for an EU Profile you link the CountrySubdivisionCode to a NUTS-3 CodeList (for example) and to a different classification system for an Australasian Profile.

In conclusion, 'status' is a good naming, and the example of codelist we propose should be documented as part of a Profile or a Domain ontology reusing the CAV.

jseguraf commented 3 years ago

The status property was added into the cav:Assessment class.