| Table of Contents |
|---|
The opportunity
It is not clear in which order to read traces when there are more than one in a single semantic correspondence statement. Some traces are, in fact, qualifiers of other traces. Is it possible to somehow differentiate the traces and apply a reading order?
Background
Much of the background has been captured in the comments section below.
Discussion
The discussion has been split into parts to make easier to follow.
Assumptions
The traces are to be read by humans/machines
The traces are to be created by humans/machines
Different types of traces
SWIM-INFO-016 Mapping of information concepts requires one concept trace
SWIM-INFO-017 Mapping of data concepts requires one concept trace and one data type trace
SWIM-INFO-018 Additional traces to clarify the mapping allows any number of additional "clarifying" traces
Source and target of traces
Reading order of traces
General consensus seems to be:
- "concept" trace
- "data type" trace
- "additional" traces
Annotating traces
Level of semantic correspondence
See Rule 60 below for resuse
Representing traces in XSD
Example of tracing
Julia's example