Mapping scenarios

["Scott Came" <scott@justiceintegration.com>]

On the call yesterday, I suggested that in section 5 we should evolve notation for handling different scenarios that
can arise when mapping a domain model to GJXDM.  There are likely more, but here are the ones I've been able to
identify:

1.  Domain concept (DC) matches perfectly to a GJXDM structure, in context.  (Easy)
2.  DC
is not in GJXDM at all (Easy...do an extension)
3.  Consolidation of DCs in a single GJXDM structure (e.g.,
witness statement information and witness person information modeled separately in domain model, but map to
WitnessType in GJXDM)
4.  Split of a DC across GJXDM structures (Location/Address may be an example here)
5.
 Association reversal (e.g., domain model associates weapon to subject, but GJXDM associates subject to weapon)
6.  DC maps to a GJXDM structure, but out of context
7.  Undoing inheritance (e.g., domain model needs to model
person roles, but then map to fixed person inheritance hierarchy in GJXDM)
8.  DC maps to multiple places in
GJXDM, and different places are appropriate depending on context.

Again, the idea is to come up with some
kind of notation (because everyone's been doing these differently...some with color-coding, some with textual columns)
for these scenarios.  Maybe it's as simple as having a spreadsheet column that contains a "mapping context
label" or some such, with some kind of indicator for which situation is in play.

Thoughts and feedback
welcome...
--Scott

Scott Came
President and Principal Consultant
Justice Integration
Solutions, Inc.
Olympia, Washington
360-402-6525
scott@justiceintegration.com
http://www.justiceintegration.com