1. 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 2010.5.20 r 2010.8.27 r2 2010.11.16 r4

2. 2010/11/16 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. ・・・

3. 2010/11/16 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:*

4. 2010/11/16 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 ○ × ○

5. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 5 Issues that need to be discussed 1.Issues on Core model 2.Issues on Basic mapping

6. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 6 1.Issues on Core model

7. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 7 Current Candidate of High-level Metamodel From Keith based on MDR Part3 Ed3 Identified Item Designatable and Classifiabled not Registered Item Unregistered Model Component Unregistered Model Unregistered Ontology Whole Unregistered Ontology Atomic Construct

8. 2010/11/16 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?

9. 2010/11/16 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.

10. 2010/11/16 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.

11. 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.

12. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 12 2.Issues on Basic mapping

13. 2010/11/16 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

14. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 14 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 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)

15. 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability 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)

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 18 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;

19. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 19 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.

20. 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

21. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 21 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 models 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 Example ： Issue Raised by UK at Wuhan Project Meeting Part10 Basic mapping registry

22. 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 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)

23. 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?

24. 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.

25. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 25 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: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?

26. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 26 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

27. 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:good From 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?

28. 2010/11/16 OKABE, Masao 28 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

29. 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

30. 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 type Person TreeBruce Denise type instance ・・・ MOF owl: Class owl: individual ・・・ Note: OWL metamodel in ODM

31. 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 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) ≡