Skip to content

Meeting #7, 2021 05 20

Jump to bottom
Ronald Tse edited this page May 28, 2021 · 4 revisions

Zoom meeting 2021-05-20 13:00-15:00 CEST

Attendees:
Knut Jetlund, Norway, HMMG Convenor
Evert Bleys, Standards Australia
Heidi Vanparys, Danish Standards
Peter Parslow, UK
Magnus Karge, Standards Norway
Ronald Tse, CalConnect / Ribose ISOGR
Chuck Heazel NGA U.S.
Tobias Spears, Canada
David Stolarz, US ANSI
Reese Plews, Japan, TMG

Conceptual model of normative statements

Minor modifications based om tests for implementation:

Implementation examples

Example based on an existing standard: Tested with 19131 (Magnus Karge and Knut Jetlund). Ref https://github.com/ISO-TC211/AutomatedDocumentation/issues/3.

Magnus Karge had tested the UML Profile. Issues:

  • The limitation of 255 characters. Ref https://github.com/ISO-TC211/AutomatedDocumentation/issues/4
  • The content of IdentifiedObject-attributes: URI=complete URI. name= local name, for example the last part of the URI for 19131 requirements.
  • Example: URI=https://standards.isotc211.org/19131/-/2/req/content/specification-language, name = specification-language

Knut Jetlund presented an OWL representation of the conceptual model and an RDF representation of the ISO 19131 modular specification.

Discussion on suitable tools: UML, OWL/RDF, other?

A challenge for the implementation of the conceptual model may be how to get the Project Teams to develop modular specifications according to the model. EA and the UML profile has a user thershold, and so do tools for writing RDF. The suggested approach from this group is to follow the UML approach, and rather export to RDF for further use. A template of a modular specification in EA may be useful. Besides, export and import to and from spreadsheets etc may be useful for the project teams, for maintaining content.

Updating the documentation on https://github.com/ISO-TC211/UML-Best-Practices/wiki/DocumentationOfUmlModels

  • Tobias Spears and Heidi Vanparys volunteered in the previous meeting to review the content and start the work on updated documentation. This is still left to be done, after we have finalized the model and implementation approach for modular specifications.
  • ref https://github.com/ISO-TC211/AutomatedDocumentation/issues/1

Other business

Ronald Tse presented the latest version of the tools for deriving documentation, with ISO 19170-1 and CityGML as examples. Some issues:

  • Some challenges with file formats for diagrams. NOTE: ISO CS prefer separate EMF files, for translation. They accept PNG for UML diagrams, as we do not want them to be able to perform changes that may break the model. We have a good relation to ISO CS on this issue.
  • Should the model-derived content in standards documents be purely machine-written, or can some content in between be manually written? This group suggest that manually written content should be avoided for the clauses in question.
  • Structure of the tables for representing classes, attributes and associations: ISO/TC 211 standard have used many different layouts for those tables. We suggest to have only one layout, which can be derived from the UML model.
  • For ISO 19170-1, each subpackage becomes a main clause in the document (6, 7, 8). For other standards, it may be better with only one main clause for the model documentation, with subclauses (6.1, 6.2, 6.3 ...). This can be configured.

The presentation has been uploaded here.

Next steps

The work from the AHG will be presented at the HMMG meeting on June 9th (https://sd.iso.org/meetings/77107)

Results & recommendations to the plenary:

Clone this wiki locally