2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 1 Issues to be discussed on MFI-Part10 Core model and basic mapping and transformation OKABE, Masao Editor MFI Part 10 2010.5.16

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 1

Issues to be discussed on MFI-Part10Core model and basic mapping and

transformation

OKABE, Masao

Editor

MFI Part 10

2010.5.16

2010.5.20 r

2010.8.27 r2

2010.11.16 r4


Basic Structure of MFI

OWL ontology repository

ontology A

Common Logicontology repository

ontology B

・・・

RM-ODP process model

repository

processmodel C

PSL process model

repository

process model D

Part8 Role &Goal registry

entries ofprocessmodel E

entries ofprocessmodel D ・・・

Part5 Process model registry

entries ofprocessmodel C


entries ofontology A

entries ofontology B ・・・

Part3 Ontology registration registry

Role &Goal E

Role &Goal F

KAOS role & goal repository

i* role & goal repository

・・・・・・

<MFI>

<Outside MFI>

Only common semantics (essential subsets) are registered in MFI registry with some additional information.

Part10 Core model (and basic mapping)

MFI presupposes the existence of complete repositories of models outside MFI.

All the parts (except Part1 and 6) inherit Part10.Part10 is not necessarily abstract (meta)classes.

・・・


Our tentative consensus at WG2 London meeting in November, 2009 　　　 (1 of 2)The scope of new Part2 (now Part10) covers the ones of old Part2

(Core) and old Part4(Mapping)

About old Part2Make it simpler so that other parts of MFI (excluding Part1 (Reference

model) and Part6 (Registration procedure)) can inherit all (?) the metaclasses of new Part2.

Tentative agreement on high-level metamodel.

About old Part4Proposal from Baba-san.

Any mappings can be classified into 6 categories.–M1->M1, M2->M2, M1->M2->M2->M1, etc.

We need more discussions.

3

Administered Item

Context Model Component1:1 1:*


Our tentative consensus at WG2 London meeting in November, 2009 　　　 (2 of 2)

If some part of MFI defines its own metacalass that inherit Administered Item, it shall inherit Administered Item through Context, Model, or Component, and shall not directly.

Some part of MFI may define its own metacalass that does not inherit Administered Item.

Administered Item

Context Model Component

Specialized Model Specialized Item

Non Administered Item

○ ×

○


Issues that need to be discussed

1. Issues on Core model

2. Issues on Basic mapping


1. Issues on Core model


Current Candidate of High-level Metamodel

From Keith based on MDR Part3 Ed3

Registered Item

Attached Item

Administered Item

0..*1..1Context

0..*1..1

MDR

Model Component

Attached Model

Component

Administered Model

Component

ModelLanguage

MFI Core

0..*1..1 0..*1..*

Process

Process Model

Process Modelling Language

0..*

1..1

0..*

1..*

MFI Process Modelling MFI Information Modelling

0..*

Composite Process

Atomic Process

Dependency Construct

Event

Resource

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

1..10..*

Entity Type

Information Model

Information Modelling Language

0..*

1..1

1..*

0..*

Relationship End Group

Attribute

Relationship

Relationship End

1..1

0..*

1..1

0..*

1..1

2..*

1..1

1..*

IdentifiedItem

Designatable and Classifiabled not

Registered Item

UnregisteredModel

Component

UnregisteredModel

UnregisteredOntology

Whole

UnregisteredOntologyAtomic

Construct


Issues on Core model 　　　 (1 of 4)

About the current candidate metamodel

Context---Use Context of MDREven today, it is still controversial what is a context?

The definition of context in MDR Part3 may change substaitially in Ed3.

Practically, it is difficult to identify a context. If there are two context, it is difficult to determine whether these two are

identical or not.

We have to get a good consensus on what a context is and to clearly define the mataclass “Context”. Otherwise, it may become a trash with many uncontrolled natural language descriptions.

Currently, none of Part3, 5, 7, 8 use the metaclass “Context”.Do we really need the metaclass “Context” in the Core?




Superclass of Atomic_ConstructThere is no superclass of Registered_Ontology_Atomic_Construct

of Part3, which inherits Administered Item.Since all the Administered Items shall inherit some metaclass of

Prat10, Part10 needs to have a metaclass that Registered_ Ontology_Atomic_Construct of Part3 inherit.

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 10



In MDR Part3, “Registered Item” is an abstract class and has mece direct subclasses “Attached Item” and “Adminitered Item” which is a composition of “Attached Item”.

This structure of MDR Part3 Ed3 is too strict to MFI, because MFI Part 3 has a metaclasses “Unregistered_Ontology_Whole” and “Unregistered_Ontology_Atomic_Construct”, which are registered in MFI and are not Administered Items but are also not attached to any Administered_Item.

If “Registered Item” is an abstract class (i.e. “Attached Item” and “Adminitered Item” are not collectively exhasutive), it is fine to MFI.

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 11

Issues on Core model 　　（ 4 of 4)

Whether some facilities (metaclasses) of Part3 which is applicable to other parts should be moved to nwePart10 or not?

Distinction of Unregistered_xxx(Item), Reference_xxx(Item) and Local_Item. --- will not be introduced to Part10

autoritativeLevel of Local_Item --- will not be introduced to Part10.

Item_Evolution --- Something will be introduced to Part2, but not exactly the same as Item_Evolution in Part3 Ed2.No---Keith (Process model, I-model do not need the information of

evolution)Yes- Denise (if it is not covered by mapping)Evolution is just a kind of mapping---Kevin

Language --- will be added to Partt2.Ontology_Language of Part3 and Process_Model_Language of Part5

are almost the same.Each part has a specialized Language inherited from Language of Part2.

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 12

2. Issues on Basic mapping

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 13

OWL 　ontology

repository 　ontology

A


ontology B

・・・

Part10 Basic mapping registry

entries of mapping from A to B

・・・




<Outside MFI>

Complete repository depending on a language

Basic Policy of MFIA generic registry

independent of languages that describe modeles


・・・ Common semantics abstracted

Policy 1 on MappingTo register common semantics of a complete mapping from A to B

Policy 2 on MappingTo register a complete mapping from abstracted A to abstracted B in MFI

Exmaple ：

Issue Raised by UK at Wuhan Project Meeting


2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 14

What is interoperability?

SE VOCAB1. the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange

information and to use the information that has been exchanged (ISO/IEC 24765:2009 Systems and software engineering vocabulary)

2. the ability for two or more ORBs to cooperate to deliver requests to the proper object (ISO/IEC 19500-2:2003 Information technology -- Open Distributed Processing -- Part 2: General Inter-ORB Protocol (GIOP)/Internet Inter-ORB Protocol (IIOP), 3.2.19)

3. the capability to communicate, execute programs, and transfer data among various functional units in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units. (ISO/IEC 2382-1:1993 Information technology--Vocabulary--Part 1: Fundamental terms, 01.01.47)

Note Basically, interoperability is about information (or object or data)

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 15

What is interoperability?Wikipdia

a property of a product or system, whose interfaces are completely understood, to work with other products or systems, present or future, without any restricted access or implementation.

Note generic and not limited to information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability

IEEE Glossarythe ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information

and to use the information that has been exchanged.Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard Computer

Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY: 1990.(iftikahr)

Note focuses only on information Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard Computer

Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY: 1990.(iftikahr)

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 16

Interoperability

In summary, interoperability is;

a property of a system (or component, ORB, functional unit, product)

to exchange information (or object, data) or communicate each other or execute a program or whose interfaces are completely understood

so that they can work properly.

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 17

Interoperability in MFI

In MFI, interoperability is;a property of who(?)to exchange what(?).

That is, does MFI intend to embody whose interoperability about what can be understood by them?

Who = a user of a repository that is a target of a MFI registry, which can be a human or a computer system

What = a content (complete model) in a repository that is a target of a MFI registry

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 18

Basic Structure of MFI

OWL ontology repository

ontology A


ontology B

・・・

RM-ODP process model

repository

processmodel C

PSL process model

repository

process model D

Part8 Role &Goal registry

entries ofprocessmodel E


Part5 Process model registry

entries ofprocessmodel C





Role &Goal E

Role &Goal F

KAOS role & goal repository

i* role & goal repository

・・・・・・

<MFI>

<Outside MFI>

Only common semantics (essential subsets) are registered in MFI registry with some additional information.

Part10 Core model (and basic mapping)

What to be exchanged in MFI interoperabilityare not but are .

are;

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 19

What to be exchanged in MFI interoperability 　

A full model in a complete repository outside a MFI registryNot an entry in a MFI registry because it has only common

semantics (an essential subset) and is not enough to be understood for its proper use.

An entry in a MFI registry is just an entry to a full model and helps to find a full model to provide its common semantics (essential subset), independent of its language (syntax).

A full model, including an ontology, an information model, a role & goal model, a process model, a service model, as a kind of informationNot a process nor a service itselfA process model and a service model to be exchanged help to find

and reuse a proper process or service.

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 20

What MFI does

One of the basic policies of MFI is that it only has common semantics of targets, independent of the languages that describe them.

Hence, MFI registry does not have enough information to define a mapping from actual A to actual B.

Moreover, since complete targets are out of the scope of MFI and MFI only registers their common semantics, complete mappings between targets is also out of the scope of MFI and MFI only registers the common semantics of complete targets? If so, we need complete mapping repositories depending on C(n,2)

language combinations. n=number of language

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 21

OWL 　ontology

repository 　ontology

A


ontology B

・・・



・・・




<Outside MFI>

Complete repository depending on a language

Basic Policy of MFIA generic registry

independent of languages that describe models


・・・ Common semantics abstracted

Policy 1 on MappingTo register common semantics of a complete mapping from A to B

Policy 2 on MappingTo register a complete mapping from abstracted A to abstracted B in MFI

Example ：

Issue Raised by UK at Wuhan Project Meeting


2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 22

MFI Part 10 Basic mapping as a essential subset of mappimgs

　 Administered Item

Context Model Component

Process Model Process

Mapping Model Mapping Component

Mapping repository specific from RM-ODP to PSL

RM-ODP process model repository

processmodel C

PSL processmodel repository

process model D

full mapping from process model C to process model D

MFI Part10 Core model(formerly 2)

MFI Part3,5, 8, etc

MFI Part10 Basic mapping(formerly 4)

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 23

Mapping (or Transformation ) for Interoperability

Currently, none of MFI Part3, Part5, Part7, Part8 has a metaclass related to mapping or transformation and that inherit MFI Part10 Basic Maping, except that MFI Part3 has a intentional relation “sameAS”.

What kind of mapping or transformation is necessaey for interoperability?

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 24

Simple Example for Discussion

Suppose that there are two conceptual domains.One is gender code whose conceptual value domain is the

abstracted one from {female, male, other}.The other is sex classification whose conceptual domain is

the abstracted one from {female, male, neutral, other}.In gender code, {female, male, other} are not mutually

exclusive, and bisexual is claasified to female and male at the same time.

In sex classification, {female, male, neutral, other} are mutually exclusive, and bisexual is classified to other.

In this case, what kind of mapping or transformation is required for interoperability.

Note: This is not an example specific to MFI but a general example.

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 25

Simple Example

There are only three exaxt mapping;From Sex classification:female to Gender code:femaleFrom Sex classification:male to Gender code:maleFrom Sex classification:netutaral to Gender code:other

Then, what is next?

Gender code

-female

-male

-other

Sex classification

-female

-male

-neutral

-other

Mapping or transformation although they are not the same?

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 26

Simple Example

From MFI Part3’s point of view,

Two Ontology ComponentsDefinition of Gender CodeDefinition of Sex Classification

Seven Ontology Atomic ConstructsGender Code:femaleGender Code:maleGender Code:otherSex Classification :femaleSex Classification :maleSex Classification :neutralSex Classification :other

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 27

Simpler example: Grade Code (?)

There are only two mapping with cardinality 1;From Grade Code2:excellent to Evaluation classification 1:goodFrom Evaluation classification 2:very poor to Evaluation classification 1:poor

Then, what is next?Mapping from A to B does not mean that A and B are not exactly the same.Clear Objectives of Part10 is necessary.See 20943 Part5 for strategy of mapping

Grade Code 1

-good (67-100)-fair (36-67)-poor (-35)

Grade Code 2

-Excellent (75-100)-Good (51-74)-Poor (26-50)-very poor(-25)

Mapping or transformation although they are not the same?

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 28

Simpler Example

From MFI Part3’s point of view,

Two Ontology ComponentsDefinition of Grade Code 1Definition of Grade Code 1

Seven Ontology Atomic ConstructsGrade Code 1: goodGrade Code 1: fairGrade Code 1: poorGrade Code 2: excellentGrade Code 2: goodGrade Code 2: poor Grade Code 2: very poor

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 29

Context and Mapping ・・・・ Part10 does not have Context

Context makes mappings sophisticated, which is better or worse.

rather than

(a Context, a Model)

(a Context, a Model Component)

(a Context, an Atomic Construct)

(a Context, a Model)

(a Context, a Model Component)

(a Context, an Atomic Construct)

a Model

a Model Component

an Atomic Construct

a Model

a Model Component

an Atomic Construct

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 30

M3 MOF (or UML for UML)

M2

M1

M0

Note: Level-pair (or multi meta level) is not all mighty.

Class

Person

Bruce

Tree

Denise

Association ・・・

・・・

・・・

instance

instance

type

type

PersonTree Bruce Denise

type type

instance instance

・・・

MOF

owl: Class owl: individual ・・・

Note: OWL metamodel in ODM

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 31

M3 MOF (or UML for UML)

M2

M1

M0

Note: Level-pair (or multi meta level) is not all mighty.

Class

Person

Bruce Denise

Instance ・・・

・・・

instance

instance

type

type type

instance

・・・

Metalevel focusing on M2 Metalevel focusing on M1 and M0

Class

Person

Bruce Denise

Instance

・・・

instance

instance

type

type

should be

MOF (or UML for UML)

T (Top Class)

≡

Documents

2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 1 Issues to be discussed on MFI-Part10 Core model and basic mapping and transformation OKABE, Masao Editor MFI Part 10 2010.5.16