Versions Compared

Version Old Version 14 New Version 15
Changes made by

WILSON Scott

WILSON Scott

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

A rationale has to be given in order to justify the use of the out-of-scope declaration and the declaration that no semantic correspondence has been established. This requirement ensures that the use of these options is verifiable.

Out-of-scope declaration

The specification contains examples of rationales for an out-of-scope declaration. Although these were developed in SESAR they are still widely applicable.

Tip
titleBest Practice

The list of rationales to use for an out-of-scope declaration is:

  • container. This can be used for concepts that are merely structural elements and have no semantic value of their own
  • messaging. This can be used when the concept contains information related to the message itself rather than the ATM information content of the message.
  • network. This can be used when the concept contains information related to the network itself rather than the ATM information content of the message.
  • system. This can be used when the concept contains information related to the system itself rather than the ATM information content of the message.
  • non-atm. This can be used when the concept is not an ATM concept. For example, this could be human resource content or content concerning pricing at an airport. (This content may, of course, be covered by a separate ontology!)
  • local. This can be used when the concept is for internal use on a specific service.
  • other. Any other text can be added when the rationale is not covered by the other categories.
Tip
titleBest Practice

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.

No semantic correspondence declaration

The use of the declaration that no semantic correspondence has been established must also be justified. The specification gives the example that it allows the mapping exercise to be done in an iterative way. Other obvious examples are when a problem in the information definition means that no mapping is obvious. It is, of course, hoped that the problem can be fixed but in many cases this is not always an easy process.

...