Working towards the next version of the SWIM Supporting Material

Page tree

Working towards the next version of the SWIM Supporting Material

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »


Page Table of Content


Extract of requirement

Title

Forms of semantic correspondence

Identifier

SWIM-INFO-014

Requirement

A semantic correspondence shall be:
  • a mapping from a concept in the information definition to a concept or concepts in the AIRM; or
  • a declaration that the concept in the information definition is out-of-scope of the AIRM; or
  • a reference to a change request for the AIRM that intends to change the AIRM to cover the concept from the information definition; or
  •  a declaration that no semantic correspondence has been established for the concept.

Rationale

This requirement ensures that the expression of semantic correspondence becomes verifiable.

It allows gaps with the AIRM to be identified so that they can be managed. A reference to the change request is designed to allow an information definition to cause an evolution of the AIRM.

Verification

Completeness

Examples/Notes

Note: There are several methods for documenting a semantic correspondence. For example, this requirement can be satisfied in a tabular format using the unique identifier of the concept in the information definition and the unique identifier of the related AIRM concept.

Semantic correspondences could also be represented using:

  • UML trace relationships; or
  • metadata fields attached to the concept in the information definition that contains the unique identifier of the AIRM concept.

Example: The following is an example of a semantic correspondence written in tabbed-outline format.

+ concept:

…name: Airspace

…semantic correspondence:

……mapping:

………trace: urn:x-ses:sesarju:airm:v410:ConsolidatedLogicalDataModel:SubjectFields:AirspaceInfrastructure:Airspace:Airspace

 

Note: This requirement ensures that the documentation of semantic correspondence is complete. It is important to ensure that there are no gaps in the documentation as gaps are difficult to interpret.

Level of Implementation

Mandatory

Explanations

Need to cover guidance on how best to use each of the options e.g. is it out of scope or can I raise a CR to enlarge the scope. 

Use cases for "no correspondence" include support for partial mappings and where the information definition is not understood.

Semantic correspondence is about documenting the relationship between a concepts terms and definitions.


Explain the process. Put emphasis on the fact that concepts are being analysed. These are “named things”, not structural elements such as xsd:choice, xsd:sequence. There is no need to look at structural elements.

semantic correspondence between textual definitions of the OUA and AIRM


The specification allows four options as visualised below.

  •  a mapping from a concept in the information definition to a concept or concepts in the AIRM. This is the best outcome of the semantic correspondence analysis. It shows that there is an equivalent or wider/narrower relationship between the concepts. However exceptions are available – next three bullets.
  • a declaration that the concept in the information definition is out-of-scope of the AIRM. This gives a clear statement that the concept being mapped is not found in the AIRM and that it will not be in the AIRM.

o   is not an ATM piece of information;

o   is technology-specific or protocol-specific data;

o   is only a container of other ATM data (however its content is in the scope of AIRM) for the purpose of a specific data exchange;

 

  • a reference to a change request for the AIRM that intends to change the AIRM to cover the concept from the information definition. This is used when a gap has been identified in the AIRM and a request has been made to fill the gap. This obviously covers concepts that are new or have not yet been identified but which are in the AIRM’s scope.
  • a declaration that no semantic correspondence has been established for the concept.  This is used when none of the other outcomes are correct. It could, for example, be that the information definition itself is not clear enough to be able to use any of the other three options. Obviously, this should be used with care. It means that a user cannot be sure about the semantics of this un-mapped concept.


Explain that they are a cascade.

Verification Support

Completeness: Check that the sematic correspondence contains one of the four options.

Examples/Best Practice

Example of SWIM-INFO-014
<xs:annotation> 
<xs:documentation>  
<semanticCorrespondence>   
<mapping>    
<trace>-AIRM unique identifier-</trace>   
</mapping>  
</semanticCorrespondence> 
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation> 

<xs:annotation> 
<xs:documentation>  
<semanticCorrespondence>   
<outOfScope rationale="container"/>  
</semanticCorrespondence> 
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation> 

<xs:annotation> 
<xs:documentation>  
<semanticCorrespondence>   
<changeRequest number="100"/>  
</semanticCorrespondence> 
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation> 

<xs:annotation> 
<xs:documentation>  
<semanticCorrespondence>  
<noSemanticCorrespondence rationale="work in progress"/>  
</semanticCorrespondence> 
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
  • No labels