...
The checklist below is a summary of all of the verification details for easy reference. It is possible to print use the table and use itwithin your own processes.
| Requirement | Verification type | Check that: | Level of implementation | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWIM-INFO-001 Need for information definitions | Completeness | [ ] There is an information definition. [ ] The information definition covers all of the information that is exchanged between the actors. as defined in the scope statement. Notes:
| Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-002 Information definition language | Correctness | [ ] The information definition is written in English. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-003 Information definition identification | Completeness | [ ] The information definition has a title. [ ] The information definition has an edition. [ ] The information definition has a reference date. | Mandatory | |
Completeness | [ ] The information definition contains the name of the responsible person or organisation. [ ] The information definition contains contact information for the responsible party. [ ] The information definition contains the role played by the responsible party. | MandatorySWIM-INFO-005 Information definition scope | ||
| /wiki/spaces/SCOI/pages/59605077 | Completeness | [ ] The information definition hascontains a textual description of the scope of the information covered by the information definition. [ ] The scope clearly delineates what is covered by the information definition. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-006 Information definition namespace | Completeness | [ ] The information definition declares a dedicated namespace for its concepts. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-007 Information definition concepts | Completeness | [ ] The information definition contains a name for each of its information concepts and data concepts. [ ] The information definition contains a definition for each of its information concepts and data concepts. [ ] The information definition contains a data type for each of its data concepts. | Mandatory | |
Consistency | [ ] There are no duplicated concepts in the same namespace within the information definition. [ ] The concepts within the information definition are consistent with each other i.e. that concepts do not contradict each other or their reference material.There are no duplicated concepts in the same namespace within. [ ] The concepts within the information definition are consistent with their reference material. Notes:
| |||
Correctness | [ ] Each concept's name, definition and data type are correct i.e. that they actually represent what they should. | |||
| SWIM-INFO-008 Unique identifiers for concepts | Completeness | either: [ ] Each concept has a unique identifiersidentifier in accordance with IETF RFC 3986. or [ ] Each concept can be uniquely identified through some other mechanism e.g. by being uniquely named in a namespace. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-009 Preservation of meaning | Consistency | [ ] The information definition uses definitions that are consistent with the AIRM when the concept's name is the same as that in the AIRM. | Mandatory Conditional | |
| SWIM-INFO-010 Principles for definitions for concepts | Correctness | [ ] The information definition has applied the principles for definitions for each of its concepts. | Recommended | |
| SWIM-INFO-011 Semantics of metadata | Consistency | [ ] The definitions of the metadata fields in the information definition are consistent (not contradictory) with the AIRM's metadata standard (ISO 19115:2003 - Geographic information — Metadata). | Recommended | |
| SWIM-INFO-012 Use of data types | Consistency | [ ] The information definition’s basic data types do not contradictconflict with those in the AIRM. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-013 Establish semantic correspondence | Completeness | [ ] The information definition has a semantic correspondence statement for each concept. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-014 Forms of semantic correspondence | Completeness | [ ] Each semantic correspondence statementsstatement contains one of the four options allowed by the specification. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-015 Out-of-scope or no correspondence | Completeness | [ ] Each semantic correspondence declaring that a concept in an information definition is out-of-scope of the AIRM has a rationale. [ ] Each semantic correspondence declaring that no semantic correspondence has been established has a rationale. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-016 Mapping of information concepts | Correctness | [ ] Each trace from the information concept in the information definition is to the AIRM concept that has an equivalent or wider meaning is correct. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-017 Mapping of data concepts | Correctness | [ ] Each trace from the data concept in the information definition is to the AIRM concept that has an equivalent or wider meaning is correct. [ ] Each trace tofrom the data type in the information definition is to the AIRM data type that has an equivalent or wider meaning is correct. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-018 Additional traces to clarify the mapping | Correctness | [ ] Each additional trace to AIRM conceptsto fully describe the narrowing of the concept being mapped is to the correct AIRM concept. | Mandatory | |
| SWIM-INFO-019 Use of the AIRM's unique identifiers in traces | Correctness | [ ] Each trace in the information definition use uses the unique identifier provided by the AIRM concept at its end-point. | Mandatory |