ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N 2277
Date: 2012-10-13
REPLACES: —
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Data Management and Interchange
Secretariat: United States of America (ANSI)
Administered by Farance Inc. on behalf of ANSI
DOCUMENT TYPE / Summary of Voting/Table of RepliesTITLE / Summary of Voting on 32N2260 ISO/IEC PDTR2 19763-9 Information technology - Metamodel framework for interoperability (MFI) Part 9: On demand model selection
SOURCE / SC32 Secretariat
PROJECT NUMBER / 1.32.22.01.09.00
STATUS / WG2 is requested to resolve the comments. The document did not obtain substantial support.
REFERENCES
ACTION ID. / ACT
REQUESTED ACTION
DUE DATE
Number of Pages / 25
LANGUAGE USED / English
DISTRIBUTION / P & L Members
SC Chair
WG Conveners and Secretaries
Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America
Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail:
available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/
*Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N2277
Summary of Voting on Document SC 32 N 2260
Title: ISO/IEC PDTR2 19763-9 Information technology - Metamodel framework for interoperability (MFI) Part 9: On demand model selection
Project: 1.32.22.01.09.00
“P” Member / Approval / Approval with Comments / Disapproval with Comments / Abstention with CommentsCanada / 1
China / 1
Czech Republic / 1
Egypt / 1
Finland / 1
Germany / 1
India / 1
Japan / 1
Korea, Republic of / 1
Portugal / 1
Russian Federation / 1
Sweden / 1
United Kingdom / 1
United States / 1
Total “P” / 5 / 0 / 4 / 5
“O” Member
Austria
Belgium
France / 1
Ghana
Hungary
Indonesia
Italy / 1
Kazakhstan
Netherlands, The
Norway
Romania
Poland / 1
Switzerland
Total “O”
Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America
Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail:
available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/
*Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI
COMMENTS:
Canada
NO. See comments below:
Finland
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
Germany
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
India
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
Japan
NO. See comments below:
Portugal
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
Sweden
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
United Kingdom
NO. See comments below:
United States
NO. See comments below:
Canadian Comments on SC32 N2260 PDTR2 19763-9 / Date: 2012-11-21 / Document:1 / 2 / (3) / 4 / 5 / (6) / (7)
MB1
/ Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1) / Paragraph/
Figure/Table/Note
(e.g. Table 1) / Type of com-ment2 / Comment (justification for change) by the MB / Proposed change by the MB / Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
CA01 / 0-Ballot / - / Ge / Canada has voted ‘Disapprove with Comments’ on this ballot, for the reasons stated below. Canada will change its vote to Approval on satisfactory resolution of these comments. / See detailed comments below.
CA02 / 0-Introduction / Line 1 / Ed / There is no space after the dash in “–On demand” / Insert a space. / Accept
CA03 / 1. Scope / 1st para / te / 1. It is not clear what is meant by the phrase “role&goal, process and service”. It is inconsistent with “role, goal, process and service” (RGPS) and the use of the phrase in Clause 4.1 of “role&goal models, process model and services”, etc. Here in particular the construct of “role&goal” as a single work is confusing and not English
One needs a consistent and unambiguous text here. / 1. Project Editors to clarify and provide consistent usage (such as “role, goal, process and service” (RGPS) / Accept.
CA04 / 3.Definitions / all / te / Role, goal, process and services are four key concepts in this document. They need to be defined. Referring readers to other documents not only is very inefficient but also costly in the need to go and find (and purchase) all the Parts of 19763 being referred to. / Insert definitions for role, goal, process and services (based on agreed definitions as per ballot comment resolutions for others Parts of 19763 / Add:
Editor’s Note:
If this part becomes DTR, the definitions of the following terms will be copied here: role, …
CA05 / 3.2 Abbreviated terms / all / te / This should be a separate Cause titled “4. Symbols and abbreviations”. Most of the entries here are not “abbreviated terms” but simply “Abbreviations” / Apply / Leave as it is
CA06 / 4.1 / te / 1. Clause 4.1 contains a whole series of rules (over 24 in all). These are difficult to follow as they seem to be placed in random order.. One way to address this is to group all the rules pertaining to role, goal, process and service, i.e. all those starting with “each role…” followed by those starting with “Each goal..” etc.
2. The last sentence in this series I not a rule but a Note. It however is not self-explanatory since the concept of “instance of involvement type” is not explained.
3 In addition, without added text, the sets of rules raises a whole number of questions, including the use of the phrase “ by zero, one or more”. For example the rule statement “Each process is to be fully realized by zero, one or more services” is meaningless without explanation. How does one know, what are the constraints by which one can determine whether a “process is fully realized”
4. Also, the rules introduce the concept of “actor”, involvement .type”, personal goal”” and “process involvement”, “role goal”, etc.. These concepts are not defined and also appear as key concepts in Figure 1
5. Finally, the introduction of “actor” raises the question of role qualification, are there constraints as on an entity being able to play a role, are there role qualifications, can the same actor play several different role in the course of a activities and tasks of a process being completed, etc. Here Clause 8.4 Rules for specification of Open-edi roles and role attributes” in ISO/IEC 15944-1:2011, 2nd edition should be consulted and used as applicable / 1. Project Editors requested to “reorganize presentation of the rule statement in a more systematic and logical manner.
2. Project Editors requested to explain why needed or else delete.
3. Some of the rules need explanatory notes or can be deleted?
4. Project Editor to provide a definition for each of the key concepts added in the rule set and Figure 1. Project Editors to explain why “personal goal” is added and how it differs from “goal”. (Else delete).
5. Project Editors requested to consult the JTC1/SC32 standard ISO/IEC 15944-1 Clause 8.4 on rules governing specification of roles. / 1. See also GB02, US12
Following GB02 and group the associations like:
Associations in MFI-8 are:
Associations between MFI-8 and MFI-7 are:
2. Use the formal format of Note.
3. Not rules. Just Associations. Replace all the relationships with associations
4. Definition is given in MFI-8
5. This is beyond the scope of this part.
CA07 / 5.2 / Figure 3 / Ed / In the PDF version, Figure 3 is unreadable because of dark shadows. / Ensure that the Figure is readable next time the pdf is generated. / Accept. Submit both pdf and word
CA08 / 5.2 / Paras 3, 4, and 5 / Te / The text refers to ‘Request description’, but this is not specified. What form will this request description take? / ODMS is effectively providing a service, and the request and reply messages should be specified. The document needs to specify how requests should be formulated, and how the responses will be formatted. If different query languages are to be supported, explain how. / See also US027
Replace the ‘Request description’ as ‘search term’
Add definitions of search term, request type, return type in 3.1
CA09 / All / Te / Any other errors found before or during the Comment Resolution Meeting should be corrected if consensus can be reached on a resolution. / To be addressed at the CRM as required.
END
1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)
2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial
NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory.
page 3 of 26
ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version 2001-10
Japanese comments on 32N2260T-text_for_ballot-PDTR2_19763-9 / Date: / Document:1 / 2 / (3) / 4 / 5 / (6) / (7)
MB1
/ Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1) / Paragraph/
Figure/Table/Note
(e.g. Table 1) / Type of com-ment2 / Comment (justification for change) by the MB / Proposed change by the MB / Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
JP 01 / General / te / Although MFI-5, MFI-7 and MFI-8 do have relations to OWL, there are descriptions using OWL based on the concepts defined in OWL. They should be removed.
For details, see JP07, 08, 09. / Drop the corresponding sentences and table1.
JP 02 / General / ed / There are many MFI-5, MFI-7 and MFI-8s.
They should be ISO/IEC 19763-5, ISO/IEC 19763-5 and ISO/IEC 19763-8 respectively, unless they are defined as abbreviated terms. / Accept
JP 03 / Cover / Title / ed / "Information Technology –Metamodel Framework for Interoperability" should be "Information technology –Metamodel framework for interoperability". / Accept
JP 04 / 3.2.1
RGPS
etc. / ed / Abbreviated terms should not have section no.
That is, 3.2.1 should be removed. / Accept
JP 05 / 3.2.4
MFI / ed / "Metamodel Framework for Interoperability" should be "Metamodel framework for interoperability". / Accept
JP 06 / 4.2 Semantic annotation / At line 4 -5 of paragraph 4 / te / The meaning of "conceptual alignment" of "In order to get conceptual alignment with SMMP" needs to be clarified. SMMP and this section do not have strong relation because SMMP is about data element. / Drop the corresponding sentences
JP 07 / 4.2 Semantic annotation / At line 4 - 5 of paragraph 4 / te / It says "In order to get conceptual alignment with SMMP, OWL language is selected to represent the type of semantic match." But, SMMP does not use OWL. / Drop the corresponding sentences
JP 08 / 4.2 Semantic annotation / Table 1 / te / None of "owl: equivalentTo", "owl:superclassOf" and "owl:subclassOf" is a vocabulary of OWL. / Delete them.
The similar ones are "owl:equivalentClass" and "rdfs:subClassOf". The former can be applied to only owl:Class and the latter can be applied to rdfs:Class. But, a class here may not be either an instance of owl:Class nor rdfs:Class. / Drop the corresponding sentences and table1.
JP 09 / 4.2 Semantic annotation / Table 1 / te / The meaning of "a class description" and "the class extension of the concept" needs to be clarified. What is the class description of the example? What is the concept of the user request of the example? Is it just "reserve" and "ticket" or "Reserve a ticket"? What are the class extension of them? / Need clear definitions (including references) of class, class extension and concept.
If we adapt the definition of concept of ISO 1087, it includes "individual concept" and a concept may not have a class extention. / Drop the corresponding sentences and table1.
JP 10 / Annex A / te / Examples do not conform to the latest MFI-5,7,8.
For example, "undertakes" of Role should be "takes_charge_of"? etc. etc. / Will be consistent with MFI-5,7,8
GB 01 / 4.1 / Paras 2 and 4 / te / In both of these paragraphs there are references to repositories. It was agreed at the Berlin meeting that the concept of model repositories outwith the metamodel registries would no longer be referenced in 19763. / Remove all references to repositories. / Accept
GB 02 / 4.1 / Para 6 / ed / This para includes a long list of sentences each of which describes an association in one direction. It looks very daunting. / Increase the indentation at the start of each sentence and add a 'spare line' between each pair of sentences so that it is easier to see the complete picture of an association. / Accept
GB 03 / 4.1 / Para 6, first association sentence / te / Sentence does not show true nature of the association. / Amend to read "Each actor is player in zero, one or more roles". / Accept
GB 04 / 4.1 / Para 6, third and fourth association sentence / te / "Undertakes" is not appropriate for this association / Amend to read "Each role is to be used to achieve one or more role goals" and "Each role goal is to be achieved by one or more roles". / After discussion, change to:
"Each role sets one or more role goals" and "Each role goal is set by one or more roles".
GB 05 / 4.1 / Para 6, fifth and sixth association sentence / te / "Execute" is not appropriate for this association / Amend to read "Each role is involved in processes through one or more process involvements" and "Each process involvement represents the involvements in processes of one or more roles". / Accept, but the cardinality should be 0..*, not 1..*
GB 06 / 4.1 / Para 6, ninth and tenth association sentence / te / "Execute" is not appropriate for this association / Amend to read "Each role is involved in services through one or more service involvements" and "Each service involvement represents the involvements in services of one or more roles". / Accept, but the cardinality should be 0..*, not 1..*
GB 07 / 4.1 / Para 6, seventeenth and eighteenth association sentence / te / "Prefer" is not appropriate for this association / Amend to read "Each actor sets one or more personal goals" and "Each personal goal is set by one and only one actor". / Accept
GB 08 / 4.1 / Figure 1 / te / It would improve the understanding of the whole group of RPGS standards if the boundaries of Parts 5, 7 and 8 were included on the diagram. In particular, it is not clear which part will define Involvement_Type, Process_Involvement and Service_Involvement. / Show the boundaries of the scopes of Parts 5, 7 and 8 on the figure. / Accept
GB 09 / 4.2 / te / It is very difficult to understand how this semantic annotation will work if there are separate registries for ontologies (as per MFI-3), process (as per MFI-5), services (as per MFI-7) and roles and goals (as per MFI-8) yet each of these parts describes separate registries. Surely, there should be a single model registry per organisation (maybe combined with a metadata registry). / Rewrite the clause to make clear that there should be a single registry. (Note that this might also require amendments to Parts 3, 5, 7 and 8.) / After discussion, UK will withdraw the comments.
See also disposition of the comment US013 which is edited by Ray Gates.
GB 10 / 4.2 / Table 1 / ed / This table is split across a page break which makes it very difficult to understand. / Ensure that small tables are all on one page. / Accept
GB 11 / 5.2 / Para 2, line 2 / ed / Inconsistency: In this para there is "Business Process Model and Notation".yet in the Bibliography "Business Process Modeling Notation" is used. Even the OMG website for BPMN has "Business Process Model and Notation" in the heading of the home page yet the first sentence on the same home page starts " A standard Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) will provide businesses …" Despite this inconsistency used by OMG, within a single standard we should be consistent. / Use consistent terminology throughout, preferably "Business Process Modeling Notation". / Accept
GB 12 / 5.2 / Figure 3 / ed / On the copy available to us this figure is obscured by black patches.. / -- / Accept
GB 13 / Annex A / Figure 1 / te / For Role_Goal_Model00 the namespace field is empty. / Provide suitable content. / Accept
GB 14 / Annex A / Figure 1 / te / For Role00 the name field contains "saler". This does not match with Figure A.4. / Replace with "sales agent".. / Accept
1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)