...
The specification gives four types of semantic correspondence. The first of these is the best outcome of the semantic correspondence analysis. It shows that there is an equivalent or wider/narrower relationship between the concepts.:
- a mapping from a concept in the information definition to a concept or concepts in the AIRM.
...
- a declaration that the concept in the information definition is out-of-scope of the AIRM. This gives a clear statement that the concept being mapped is not found in the AIRM and that it will not be in the AIRM. For example, the concept is:
- is not an ATM related piece of information;
- is technology-specific or protocol-specific data;
- is only a container of other ATM data (however its content is in the scope of AIRM) for the purpose of a specific data exchange;
- a reference to a change request for the AIRM that intends to change the AIRM to cover the concept from the information definition. This is used when a gap has been identified in the AIRM and a request has been made to fill the gap. This obviously covers concepts that are new or have not yet been identified captured but which are in the AIRM’s scope.
- a declaration that no semantic correspondence has been established for the concept. This is used when none of the other outcomes are correct. It could, for example, be that the information definition itself is not clear enough to be able to use any of the other three options. Obviously, this should be used with care. It means that a user cannot be sure about the semantics of this un-mapped concept.
The semantic correspondence document may contain a mixture of the four types. Each of the information definitions definition's concepts must have a semantic correspondence. For example, the figure below contains six mappings. It shows how each concept in the information definition (to the left) has a mapping.
...
- remember that concepts are being analysed. These are “named things”, not structural elements such as xsd:choice, or xsd:sequence. There is no need to look at structural elements.
- the textual definitions of concepts are analysed.
there is no need to consider syntax.
the
| Tip | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
The option to use out-of-scope or change request may not be obvious. In this case, the best practice is to use the change request option. This will allow the AIRM change control board to consider the input and whether the AIRM's scope needs to be changed. |
Verification Support
Completeness
...
This example shows how to embed a mapping into an XML schema document using the annotation element. It shows how the trace should use the AIRM's unique identifier as required by SWIM-INFO-019.
| Code Block | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
<semanticCorrespondence>
<mapping>
<trace>-AIRM unique identifier-</trace>
</mapping>
</semanticCorrespondence>
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
|
This example shows how to embed an out-of-scope declaration into an XML schema document using the annotation element. It shows how the rationale, required by SWIM-INFO-015, is added as an attribute.
...
This example shows how to embed a no semantic correspondence established declaration into an XML schema document using the annotation element. It shows how the rationale, required by SWIM-INFO-015, is added as an attribute.
| Code Block | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
<xs:annotation> <xs:documentation> <semanticCorrespondence> <noSemanticCorrespondence rationale="incomplete mapping"/> </semanticCorrespondence> </xs:documentation> </xs:annotation> |