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

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