Purpose
Excerpt |
---|
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?
Discussion
The discussion has been split into parts to make easier to follow.
Assumptions
The SWIM Information Definition Specification assumes that we are not yet in an environment that is fully supported by semantic technologies. Therefore, humans are the more realistic target for the semantic correspondence statements. This leads to the following statements about traces:
This guidance is provided in order to allow you to better understand mappings from an information definition to the AIRM and how to record them in the information definition. |
The guidance applies to:
- SWIM-INFO-016 Mapping of information concepts
- SWIM-INFO-017 Mapping of data concepts
- SWIM-INFO-018 Additional traces to clarify the mapping
The different forms of semantic correspondence are outlined in SWIM-INFO-014 Forms of semantic correspondence. This guidance applies to mappings (the first option in the requirement). Mappings contain one or more traces. Therefore, this guidance covers the different types of traces.
Table of Contents |
---|
Different types of traces
The table below outlines the names, definition and definition relevant requirement to be used for the different types of trace that constitute a mapping statement. The names are inspired by the words from the SWIM Information Specification's requirements. This approach makes it clear which requirement is being satisfied by the trace.
Requirement | Trace name | Definition |
---|
SWIM-INFO-016 Mapping of information concepts | "information concept" trace | trace from the information concept in the information definition to the AIRM concept that has an equivalent or wider meaning |
SWIM-INFO- |
017 Mapping of |
data concepts |
|
| |
SWIM-INFO- |
requires one concept trace and one data type trace
018 Additional traces to clarify the mapping | "narrowing" trace | trace to an AIRM concept to fully describe the narrowing of the concept being mapped |
Source and target of traces
Info |
---|
The Interoperability Architecture provides good guidance on the best place to start when looking to establish a semantic correspondencemapping. Basically, the best place to start is usually the adjacent box within the grid. |
The usual best start point when identifying a suitable AIRM concept depends on the type of information definition being traced. This can also give an indication on the type of trace to be used. The table below gives some general guidance on this.
Type of information definition |
---|
General guidance | |
---|---|
information exchange requirements | The best place to start in order to identify a suitable AIRM concept is the AIRM Conceptual Model. |
However, information exchange requirements can vary in the level of detail included. Therefore, if no suitable AIRM concept is found |
in the AIRM Conceptual Model, the AIRM Logical Model may |
be useful. For the most part, it is expected that information exchange requirements involve "information concept" traces and so fall under requirement 16. Narrowing traces (requirement 18) can be added as needed. It is usual that these trace to the same part of the AIRM as the "main" trace.
|
| |
service payload / information exchange model | Service payloads and information exchange models can include concepts that are of different level of granularity. For example, they may contain standardised "messages" such as NOTAM and METAR. They also contain concepts such as "Aerodrome" or "Airspace". These in turn may have attributes/properties such as the "ICAO location indicator". Although it is difficult to give generic advice that is applicable in all cases, the following guidance is applicable:
|
|
Info |
---|
Classes have one trace - 016 Attributes have two traces - 017 "data type" trace is dependent on "data concept" trace. |
|
|
Narrowing traces (requirement 18) can be added as needed. It is usual that these trace to the same part of the AIRM as the "main" trace. |
|
|
|
- "data concept" trace
- "data type" trace
Clarifying traces should be in the same model as the trace being qualified.
Reading order of traces
Info |
---|
Structure of traces - capture the dependencies between the types of traces. Can't have an "additional trace" alone or "data type" trace. The root trace is mandatory. Need to add these rules in the best practice. see struts from programming languages |
General The standard requires multiple traces to be added to a mapping. The general reading order is:
- "information concept" trace
- "additionalnarrowing" traces (0..*)
or
- "data concept" trace
- "data type" trace (1)
- "additionalnarrowing" traces (0..*)
All traces have an AND relationship.
Info |
---|
The following rules apply to the traces:
|
The number of traces
The important thing when creating a mapping is to add sufficient traces to ensure that the semantics are understood. There is no need to add further traces.
If you find that too many traces are required to ensure that the semantics are understood, there may be a problem somewhere in fully understanding the meaning of a concept. In that case a change may be needed to the information definition and/or the AIRM.
Level of semantic correspondence
Advanced users may like to add extra detail concerning the level degree of semantic correspondence achieved. The skos standard calls this the "semantic relation" between concepts.
The requirements talk about mapping to the concept with "equivalent or wider meaning". The table below contains the old AIRM Rulebook names and the skos equivalentsoutlines the skos sematic relation term that can be used in order to make the level of semantic correspondence explicit. It also contain the equivalent terms that were used in SESAR.
Info |
---|
The skos names are preferred. Skos has rich support in semantic technologies. However, existing SESAR documents use different names and it is important that readers can understand those traces - the table therefore includes those. |
Definition being traced to is... |
---|
Skos annotations that can make this more explicit |
---|
Term used in SESAR documents | ||
---|---|---|
Equivalent | skos:exactMatch: is used to link two concepts, indicating a high degree of confidence that the concepts can be used interchangeably across a wide range of information retrieval applications. skos:closeMatch: is used to link two concepts that are sufficiently similar that they can be used interchangeably in some information retrieval applications. | exactCopy: Definition of concepts in the information definition and the AIRM are exact copy of each other. |
syntacticallyEqual: Definitions are only different due to syntax corrections (grammar, spelling) but are otherwise equivalent. |
rewritten: The definition of the concept in the information definition has been rewritten to reflect information definition specificity. However, the meaning is the same, i.e. the definition still describes exactly the same concept as the AIRM. | |
Wider | skos: |
narrowMatch: |
used to |
state a hierarchical mapping link between two concepts. | specialised: The definition in the information definition is a special case of the definition found in the AIRM |
used to state a hierarchical mapping link between two concepts
. |
Info |
---|
We could allow both columns with namespace identifiers - codelist entry. Could even map to an URL to give the word. skos is preferred but SESAR legacy is still supported. |
Note |
---|
We only need additional narrowing traces if the main trace is "specialised" or "narrowMatch" |
Note |
---|
Traces cannot be annotated as "generalised" as this breaks the requirement. |
Annotating traces
It is possible to add a further notes to the mapping (the container for one or more trace?). This comes in handy for example when e.g. tracing legacy interfaces that have data type constraints leading to loss of Information.
RepresentingRecording traces in XSD
However it should be consistent with the information given at the AIRM homepage. Links to the according pages will also help.
Info |
---|
This is probably handled as a separate activity after the current task is completed. |
Background
Existing qualifier names
Different artefacts have used different trace "qualifiers".
Example 1
- "Data Traces", which, for the case of SWIM-INFO-017, refer to the Data Type constraints. They must be unique, and may already also contain the full definition (as the best matching AIRM concept with the correct data type constraint will be chosen), so they are logically first in line.
- "Definition Traces" which point to the comprehensive or even normative definition (when available) or to the best matching wider AIRM concept (in both SWIM-INFO-016 and SWIM-INFO 017). They must be present and must be unique, so they are next in line (top of the line for SWIM-INFO-016 actually).
- "Context Traces" that add qualifiers (i.e. implement SWIM-INFO-018). These are optional, and their order should not have semantic significance.
Example 2
The Donlon example at https://ext.eurocontrol.int/swim_confluence/display/SWIM/Donlon+TOBT+Setting+Service+Description#DonlonTOBTSettingServiceDescription-InformationDefinition is almost the same. It uses:
- AIRM Semantic Trace
- AIRM Definition Trace. This seems to be in line with what is mentioned above.
- AIRM Context Trace. This appears to add the qualifiers as mentioned above.
Example 3
Looking at the ISRM (Information Service Reference Model) it has:
- Main CLDM mapping. The mandatory and unique CLDM mapping indicating the AIRM element having the type of data as the OuA construct. E.g. a “time” for TSAT;
- Context CLDM Mapping. One or more optional additional CLDM mappings helping achieving a more accurate semantic definition by giving more context to the main CLDM mapping. E.g. the “TARGET” planning status for TSAT;
- IM Definition Mapping. An IM mapping allows referencing a unique IM element containing a normative definition (typically from ICAO) for the OUA construct. Can be optional or mandatory depending on contexts as explained in next chapters.
Example 4
EUROCAE ED-254.
The mappings to the AIRM have the following keywords:
- SemanticTrace
- DefinitionTrace
- ContextTrace (which can be further defined as ContextTrace_1, ContextTrace_2, etc)
Keyword: DefinitionTrace.
Value: URN of an AIRM information or data concept
Usage Notes: This will normally point to a resource in the AIRM Information Model, i.e. an AIRM information concept. However, occasionally (e.g. when mapping the definition of certain containers), it may necessary to refer to the definition part of a (CLDM) data concept. In this case, the data type of the AIRM trace target is not part of the trace semantics.
Keyword: SemanticTrace
Value: URN of an AIRM data concept
Usage Notes: When there is no accompanying DefinitionTrace, it is understood that both SWIM-INFO-016 and SWIM-INFO-017 are implemented by this trace (see note on SWIM-INFO-017)
Keyword: ContextTrace / ContextTrace_n
Value: URN of an AIRM information or data concept
Usage Notes: The first form is the standard. When more than one context traces is required on an element, the second form is used. The EUROCAE document does not formally associate business semantics with data entities, i.e. all data entities are implicitly traced to “OutOfScope: container”. The mappings of individual data fields are therefore self-contained, there is no “trace cascading”.
How many qualifiers
Can’t we survive on:
2 categories:
- “trace” (1 or more to either AIRM-CM or AIRM-LM; note that the URN shows whether CM or LM)
- “trace_qualifier”
In the schema trace and trace_qualifier could then be differentiated.
2 best practices:
- Order best practice: “widest first”
- Qualifier best practice: “Trace qualifier directly after qualified trace”
Adding notes to mappings
It is maybe worth noting here that sometimes you want to put a comment on a mapping, so I am allowing this as an extra annotation. This comes in handy for example when tracing legacy interfaces that have data type constraints leading to loss of Information.
Perhaps we need to look at what "aspects" of the AIRM model are mappable to first - and also possible the level of alignment (eg exact, broader, etc aka SKOS-like).
title | From old AIRM rulebook |
---|
The 'Definition:Adapted' AIRM::TaggedValue shall be completed in order to indicate the level of semantic correspondence with the source definition. The list of values is:
ExactCopy: Definition of source and target are exact copy of each other.
SyntacticallyEqual: Syntax corrections (grammar, spelling)
Rewritten: The definition has been rewritten for improved quality. The meaning is the same, i.e. the definition still describes exactly the same entity as the target definition.
Specialised: Source definition is a special case of the target definition.
Generalised: Source definition is a generalised case of the target definition.
AIRM_Rule 116
A data or information construct is considered to be in semantic correspondence with the AIRM if one of the following conditions holds:
The definition of the construct is an exact copy of the definition of a specific AIRM element, or it is syntactically equal, or is rewritten or is specialised as described in AIRM_Rule 60.
How should the different traces be represented in the XSD examples we use? The table below gives two alternatives for recording the traces in XSD.
If this is a best practiceUsing element names is the preferred option as it can be used more easily in rules. The element name contains semantic hints even if the attributes are not added.
However, the attribute option is probably preferable - the attribute can be optional and the name of the element is always <trace>also supported as there are a lot of traces developed that do not use element names. Support for this option should be deprecated in the future.
<dataConceptTrace>
<dataTypeTrace>
<trace keyword="dataConceptTrace>
<trace keyword="dataTypeTrace>
"additionalnarrowing" trace
<narrowingTrace>
<trace keyword="additionalTrace>narrowingTrace>
XSD Example
If we apply all of this:
element names are preferred. It can be used more easily in rules.
contains some semantic hints even if the attributes are not added.
see if "degree" has a skos name instead.
the guidance above we get the following in XML Schema notation.
or:
Example of tracing exercise