[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: 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]