2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 1 Issues to be discussed on MFI-Part10 Core model and basic mapping OKABE, Masao Editor MFI Part r r r3

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 2 Basic Structure of MFI OWL ontology repository ontology A Common Logic ontology repository ontology B ・・・ RM-ODP process model repository process model C PSL process model repository process model D Part8 Role &Goal registry entries of process model E entries of process model D ・・・ Part5 Process model registry entries of process model C entries of process model D ・・・ entries of ontology A entries of ontology B ・・・ Part3 Ontology registration registry Role & Goal E Role & Goal F KAOS role & goal repository i* role & goal repository ・・・ 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. ・・・

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 3 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 Part2 Make 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 Part4 Proposal 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 Component 1:1 1:*

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 4 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 ○ × ○

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 5 Issues that need to be discussed 1.Issues on Core model 2.Issues on Basic mapping 3.Issues on how to prescribe MFI metamodel

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 6 1.Issues on Core model

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 7 Current Candidate of High-level Metamodel From Keith based on MDR Part3 Ed3

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 8 Issues on Core model (1 of 4) About the current candidate metamodel Context---Use Context of MDR Even 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?

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 9 Issues on Core model (2 of 4) About the current candidate metamodel Superclass of Atomic_Construct There 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.

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 10 Issues on Core model (3 of 4) About the current candidate metamodel 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.

2010/11/15 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. 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.

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 12 2.Issues on Basic mapping

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 13 OWL ontology repository ontology A Common Logic ontology repository ontology B ・・・ Part10 Basic mapping registry entries of mapping from A to B ・・・ entries of ontology A entries of ontology B ・・・ Part3 Ontology registration registry Complete repository depending on a language Basic Policy of MFI A generic registry independent of languages that describe modeles entries of mapping from A to B ・・・ Common semantics abstracted Policy 1 on Mapping To register common semantics of a complete mapping from A to B Policy 2 on Mapping To register a complete mapping from abstracted A to abstracted B in MFI Exmaple ： Issue Raised by UK at Wuhan Project Meeting Part10 Basic mapping registry

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 14 背景： MFI Part 10 における Basic mapping の論点 考え方１であることは、ほとんど自明と考えていたが、８ 月の MFI プロジェクト会議（武漢）において、英国から考 え方２が提示された。 このような基本的な点で意見が異なるのは、 MFI が目指す interoperability に関して、同床異夢であることに原因がある ことが懸念される。 改めて、 MFI が目指す interoperability に関して、合意を得て おく必要がある。

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 15 Part10 Core model and basic mapping Part11 Structured model registering Part1 Reference model Part3 Metamodel for ontology registration Part5 Metamodel for process model registration Part7 Metamodel for service registration Part8 Metamodel for role and goal registration Part2 Core model Part4 Model mapping Part6 Registration procedure Part9 On demand model selection 将来的に use すべき use （第 1 版発行 :2007/2 ） （第 2 版発行 :2010/8) (CD1) (WD) (WD 未 ) （共に Part10, Part11 に吸収予定） （ WD 未） (WD 未 ) (Part8, 5, 7 の使い方 (?) に関する TR ） 将来的に use すべき 中国が主導する ODMS(On demand model selection) ないし RGPS (Role, Goal, Process, Service) (Registry summary, ROR?) （ WD 未） MFI の全体構成

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 16 What is interoperability? SE VOCAB 1.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 :2003 Information technology -- Open Distributed Processing -- Part 2: General Inter-ORB Protocol (GIOP)/Internet Inter-ORB Protocol (IIOP), ) 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 :1993 Information technology--Vocabulary-- Part 1: Fundamental terms, ) Note Basically, interoperability is limeted to about information (or object or data)

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 17 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  IEEE Glossary the 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)

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 18 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.

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 19 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

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 20 Basic Structure of MFI OWL ontology repository ontology A Common Logic ontology repository ontology B ・・・ RM-ODP process model repository process model C PSL process model repository process model D Part8 Role &Goal registry entries of process model E entries of process model D ・・・ Part5 Process model registry entries of process model C entries of process model D ・・・ entries of ontology A entries of ontology B ・・・ Part3 Ontology registration registry Role & Goal E Role & Goal F KAOS role & goal repository i* role & goal repository ・・・ 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 interoperability are not but are. are;

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 21 What to be exchanged in MFI interoperability A full model in a complete repository outside a MFI registry Not 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 information Not a process nor a service itself A process model and a service model to be exchanged help to find and reuse a proper process or service.

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 22 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

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 23 OWL ontology repository ontology A Common Logic ontology repository ontology B ・・・ Part10 Basic mapping registry entries of mapping from A to B ・・・ entries of ontology A entries of ontology B ・・・ Part3 Ontology registration registry Complete repository depending on a language Basic Policy of MFI A generic registry independent of languages that describe modeles entries of mapping from A to B ・・・ Common semantics abstracted Policy 1 on Mapping To register common semantics of a complete mapping from A to B Policy 2 on Mapping To register a complete mapping from abstracted A to abstracted B in MFI Exmaple ： Issue Raised by UK at Wuhan Project Meeting Part10 Basic mapping registry

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 24 MFI Part 10 Basic mapping as a essential subset of mappimgs Administered Item Context Model Component Process Model Process Mapping ModelMapping Component Mapping repository specific from RM-ODP to PSL RM-ODP process model repository process model C PSL process model 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)

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 25 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?

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 26 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.

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 27 Simple Example There are only three exaxt mapping; From Sex classification:female to Gender code:female From Sex classification:male to Gender code:male From Sex classification:netutaral to Gender code:neutral Then, what is next? Gender code -female -male -other Sex classification -female -male -neutral -other Mapping or transformation although they are not the same?

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 28 Simple Example From MFI Part3’s point of view, Two Ontology Components Definition of Gender Code Definition of Sex Classification Seven Ontology Atomic Constructs Gender Code:female Gender Code:male Gender Code:other Sex Classification :female Sex Classification :male Sex Classification :neutral Sex Classification :other

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 29 Simpler example: Grade Code (?) There are only two exact mapping; From Evaluation classification 2:excellent to Evaluation classification 1:good From Evaluation classification 2:very poor to Evaluation classification 1:poor Then, what is next? Grade Code 1 -good -fair -poor Grade Code 2 -excellent -good -poor -very poor Mapping or transformation although they are not the same?

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 30 Simpler Example From MFI Part3’s point of view, Two Ontology Components Definition of Grade Code 1 Seven Ontology Atomic Constructs Grade Code 1: good Grade Code 1: fair Grade Code 1: poor Grade Code 2: excellent Grade Code 2: good Grade Code 2: poor Grade Code 2: very poor

2010/11/15 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 Tree Denise Association ・・・ instance type Person TreeBruce Denise type instance ・・・ MOF owl: Class owl: individual ・・・ Note: OWL metamodel in ODM

2010/11/15 OKABE, Masao 32 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 type instance ・・・ Metalevel focusing on M2 Metalevel focusing on M1 and M0 Class Person Bruce Denise Instance ・・・ instance type should be MOF (or UML for UML) T (Top Class) ≡