...
| Panel |
|---|
| borderColor | lightgrey |
|---|
| bgColor | whitesmoke |
|---|
| borderStyle | dashed |
|---|
|
Extract of requirementTitle | Forms of semantic correspondence | Identifier | SWIM-INFO-014 | Requirement | A semantic correspondence shall be:- a mapping from a concept in the information definition to a concept or concepts in the AIRM; or
- a declaration that the concept in the information definition is out-of-scope of the AIRM; or
- a reference to a change request for the AIRM that intends to change the AIRM to cover the concept from the information definition; or
- a declaration that no semantic correspondence has been established for the concept.
| Rationale | This requirement ensures that the expression of semantic correspondence becomes verifiable. It allows gaps with the AIRM to be identified so that they can be managed. A reference to the change request is designed to allow an information definition to cause an evolution of the AIRM. | Verification | Completeness | Examples/Notes | Note: There are several methods for documenting a semantic correspondence. For example, this requirement can be satisfied in a tabular format using the unique identifier of the concept in the information definition and the unique identifier of the related AIRM concept. Semantic correspondences could also be represented using: - UML trace relationships; or
- metadata fields attached to the concept in the information definition that contains the unique identifier of the AIRM concept.
Example: The following is an example of a semantic correspondence written in tabbed-outline format. + concept: …name: Airspace …semantic correspondence: ……mapping: ………trace: urn:x-ses:sesarju:airm:v410:ConsolidatedLogicalDataModel:SubjectFields:AirspaceInfrastructure:Airspace:Airspace Note: This requirement ensures that the documentation of semantic correspondence is complete. It is important to ensure that there are no gaps in the documentation as gaps are difficult to interpret. | Level of Implementation | Mandatory |
|
...
Need to cover guidance on how best to use each of the options e.g. is it out of scope or can I raise a CR to enlarge the scope.
...
Explain that they are a cascade.
Completeness: Check that the semantic correspondence contains one of the four options.
| Code Block |
|---|
| language | xml |
|---|
| title | Example of SWIM-INFO-014 |
|---|
| linenumbers | true |
|---|
|
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
<semanticCorrespondence>
<mapping>
<trace>-AIRM unique identifier-</trace>
</mapping>
</semanticCorrespondence>
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
<semanticCorrespondence>
<outOfScope rationale="container"/>
</semanticCorrespondence>
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
<semanticCorrespondence>
<changeRequest number="100"/>
</semanticCorrespondence>
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
<semanticCorrespondence>
<noSemanticCorrespondence rationale="work in progress"/>
</semanticCorrespondence>
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation> |
...