Groups - DRAFT-EDXL-RIM-SC-MtgNotes-02-09-2012.doc uploaded

[Jeff Waters<jeff.waters@navy.mil>]

        Submitter's message
        Please review these minutes of the February 9th, 2012 meeting of the Reference Information Model subcommittee for approval at our next meeting, subject to any specified changes. Thanks.
        
-- Jeff Waters

Document Name: DRAFT-EDXL-RIM-SC-MtgNotes-02-09-2012.doc

---

Description
At the February 9th meeting of the Reference Information Model
subcommittee, the members discussed the following topics:

1. TOPIC : What are some interesting aspects and uses of ?competency
questions? for our model development ? (Answer: Jeff suggested that
competency questions, i.e. questions that you hope your model will help you
answer, can be used to guide the development and limit the scope of a
model. The questions, and consequently the resulting model, can be quite
different depending on the perspective of the target audience, for example
is our reference model intended to support standard developers and/or
emergency managers or others. Also some types of questions can be answered
from an abstract model and others require concrete instances. Revisiting
competency questions for our model may be helpful as we build it out. )

2. TOPIC: What is the status of our model development? (Answer: Rex is
doing an impressive job of working through our standards and representing
them in various formats, including a logical model using Enterprise
Architect, an ontology viewable in tools like Protege, and UML. He's
included CAP and DE and is now working on a version 7 that includes RM. Rex
will post his version 7 when complete for our review and consideration.
Rex's work is a major contribution to our model development. )

3. TOPIC: What is the status of the DE 2.0? (Answer: The DE 2.0 public
review is complete, comments have been received, and the process of working
through each one is beginning. After changes have been made, a red-lined
version is made available for a public review of 15 days limited to the
changes. )

4. TOPIC: For the ontology representation of our model, how do we best
address the aggregation (part-of) hierarchy vice the subclass (type-of)
hierarchy? (Answer: A typical XML Schema hierarchy represents an
aggregation part-of relationship whereas the Web Ontology Language
hierarchy view represents a subclass type-of relationship. The members
discussed the differences and the implications and potential confusion when
creating ontology subclasses. The familiar aggregation hierarchy isn't
always readily apparent in the ontology. Jeff will prepare a DE 2.0-based
ontology to motivate further consideration of this issue.)
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Jeff Waters
Group: EM Reference Information Model SC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2012-02-09 11:45:59