OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

icom message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Draft Minutes of ICOM TC Meeting, December 16, 2009


Minutes of ICOM TC Meeting, December 16, taken by Eric S. Chan

 

Agenda

 

1.   Roll Call

2.   Approve draft minutes from November 25 and December 9 TC Meetings

3.   Review and feedback for draft model

4.  AOB

 

 

1. The following eligible members were present

 

Deirdre Lee

Laura Dragan

Patrick Durusau

Marc Pallot

Eric Chan

 

 

2.   Approve draft minutes from November 25 and December 9 TC Meetings

 

The draft minutes were approved.

 

 

3. Review and feedback for draft model

 

a. Inverse-of property characteristics

 

Participants observed that the ICOM “parentOf” properties have the inverse properties. In the artifact branch, the property axiom “parentOfArtifact is owl:InverseOf elementOfArtifactContainer” is valid among the parent-child reciprocal relations between the artifacts and the artifact containers. Similarly in the subject branch, the property axioms “parentOfActor is owl:InverseOf actorOfCommunity,” “parentOfGroup is owl:InverseOf groupOfScope,” and “parentOfRole is owl:InverseOf roleOfScope” are valid among the parent-child reciprocal relations between the scopes/communities and the subjects.

 

b. Review of metadata associations

 

Participants reviewed the model for metadata associations. In the previous TC meeting, participants had observed that an association between two classes in the UML model represents a family of “links.”  Each link connects the specific pairs of objects of the corresponding classes. When the UML model is realized in an implementation language like Java or C#, it can be too costly to represent every association in the model by link objects. The UML associations for ICOM can be represented by member variables to efficiently reference the associated objects. To implement the “links” explicitly, ICOM employs CategoryApplication, TagApplication, and BondEntityRelation to represent, respectively, the association of Category, Tag, and Bond with Entity (see the UML class diagram below). Instances of CategoryApplication, TagApplication, and BondEntityRelation can hold the attributions specific to the associated entity.

 

The association in Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a counterpart to the relationship in Entity-Relationship Model (ERM). The extensibility for relationships is a common metadata facility that lets the users to define arbitrary relationships among the entities. Bond is the name of an ICOM concept that works like the “Relationship” in ERM or the “Association” in UML. Participants discussed the use cases for bonds. Bonds are often more appropriate than tags for relating the entities to the contexts. For example, a single tag can be associated with any number of artifacts. Even though the user can create new tags as needed to mark the artifacts for a context, doing so will dilute the tags and reduce the utility of tags. Instead of using tags, the user should first define a bond class to represent the contexts such as the “related material for a customer service request.” For each incidence of the customer service request, the user can create a bond to relate any number of artifacts, such as the problem reports, customer email correspondence, logs, problem resolution, etc., by the service request identification.

 

In the previous TC meeting, participants discussed how the RDF representation for Category and Tag can be derived from the UML representation of Category and Tag using the UML to RDF mapping rule first discussed in September 16 TC minutes (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/icom/email/archives/200910/msg00000.html) and subsequently described in section “ICOM Representations with UML and RDF” of http://wiki.oasis-open.org/icom. In the previous meeting, participants also discussed how the RDF representation for Category, which is derived from the UML representation for Category according to the UML to RDF mapping rule, can be defined as instances of RDF class or OWL class. This way Category represents the extensible classes that can be derived by Description Logic in OWL. New Category hierarchies can be dynamically defined and applied on entities.

 

In this TC meeting, participants discussed how to represent Bond in RDF. Bond should be represented as instances of rdf:Property, analogous to representing Category as instances of rdf:Class. Category and Bond provide the extensibility of classes and properties for ICOM. The TC would define a modified UML to RDF mapping rule for Bond. Any custom RDF properties that do not map to the known properties in ICOM specification, such as parentOf, elementOf, createdByOf, senderOf, and receiversOf properties, shall be represented by Bond and BondEntityRelation objects in UML. Likewise, the custom RDF classes that do not map to known classes in ICOM specification shall be represented by Category objects in UML.

 

UML class diagram for entity metadata, including category, tag, and bond:

 

Entity Metadata.jpg

 

Footnote:

i. Owl:InverseOf allows one property to be obtained from another property by changing its direction, i.e. inverting it. For example, the property hasParent can be defined as the inverse property of hasChild.

ii. OWL 2 QL, which can be realized using standard relational database technology (e.g., SQL), captures many commonly used features in RDFS and small extensions thereof, such as inverse properties and sub-property hierarchies.

 

 

4. AOB

 

TC Meeting was adjourned.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]