|
Extract of requirementTitle | Out-of-scope and no semantic correspondence established declarations | Identifier | SWIM-INFO-015 | Requirement | A semantic correspondence declaring that a concept in an information definition is out-of-scope of the AIRM or that no semantic correspondence has been established shall provide a rationale. | Rationale | An out-of-scope declaration is not verifiable without information about the rationale. | Verification | Completeness | Examples/Notes | Note: The following were used in SESAR related work as rationales for an out-of-scope declaration:
- container (e.g. XML complexTypes);
- messaging (e.g. Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network address);
- network (e.g. datalink protocol version, IP address);
- system (e.g. technical identifiers, availability flags);
- non-atm (e.g. human resource related information);
- local (e.g. data only making sense for on specific service instance); and
- other (not covered by the other categories).
Note: The declaration that no semantic correspondence has been established allows the authors of an information definition to perform the mapping exercise in an iterative manner. However, it is important that a rationale is made available to make clear why no semantic correspondence has been established. | Level of Implementation | Mandatory |
|
Explanations
Notes - always need a mapping. AIRM gives urns for these if needed.
If in doubt, use the CR option in preference to either of these options.
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.
The specification contains examples of rationales for an out-of-scope declaration. Although these were developed in SESAR they are still widely applicable. It is expected that this list is a and is used when needed.
- 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 local..?
- other. Any other text can be added when the rationale is not covered by the other categories.
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. The following values can therefore be used:
- information definition issue. This can be used when a problem has been identified in the information definition. The problem cannot be resolved during the mapping exercise and it is not clear what the outcome of the resolution will be.
- incomplete mapping. This can be used when the mapping exercise has not been completed. In effect, it highlights areas where the mapping exercise is still to be performed.
- other. Any other text can be added when the rationale is not covered by the other categories.
Verification Support
Completeness: Check that the rationale is present.
Examples/Best Practice
<gmd:title> guess what </gmd:title> |