Information Model

[Renato Iannella]

Deal all - to followup on the Information Model need, I propose the
following draft:

[gdupont]

This is somehow similar to the one I sent (http://groups.google.com/
group/apml-public/browse_thread/thread/
691f07330941b901/04eb5f34fc2b62bb?
hl=en&lnk=gst&q=UML#04eb5f34fc2b62bb) with some new naming convention
and by fusing the explicit and implicit data.

Don't you plan to put somewhere an "implicit" level of the data ? Is
it the "imt" attribute of the Source ?

Except from that the diagram is clear and simple. I like this view,
especially because UML allows to go over the serialisation format
problem (ie full XML vs RDF). The link attribute could be a URI
referring to an existing ontology or a URL which sounds good to me.
However you moved the update date from the interests to the
provenance. IMHO, it could be useful to have a date on both level. Or
am I making a misunderstandig on the use of Provenance ?

gd

On Sep 29, 4:45 am, Renato Iannella <rianne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Deal all - to followup on the Information Model need, I propose the  
> following draft:
>

>  apml-01-info-model.png
> 12KViewDownload
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Renato
> NICTA

[Renato Iannella]

On 29 Sep 2008, at 22:00, gdupont wrote:
> Don't you plan to put somewhere an "implicit" level of the data ? Is
> it the "imt" attribute of the Source ?

There are the two "explicit" and "implicit" links between Profile and
Interest.

> However you moved the update date from the interests to the
> provenance. IMHO, it could be useful to have a date on both level. Or
> am I making a misunderstandig on the use of Provenance ?

Provenance can be instantiated for any AttentionProfile, Profile, and
Interest.
(so can appear at any level...I will add some cardinalities...)

Renato
NICTA

[Gérard Dupont]

On Sep 30, 7:24 am, Renato Iannella <rianne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2008, at 22:00, gdupont wrote:
>
> > Don't you plan to put somewhere an "implicit" level of the data ? Is
> > it the "imt" attribute of the Source ?
>
> There are the two "explicit" and "implicit" links between Profile and 
> Interest.

Oops my mistake...

>
> > However you moved the update date from the interests to the
> > provenance. IMHO, it could be useful to have a date on both level. Or
> > am I making a misunderstandig on the use of Provenance ?
>
> Provenance can be instantiated for any AttentionProfile, Profile, and 
> Interest.
> (so can appear at any level...I will add some cardinalities...)

I did not miss that part. So to add a update date on an Interest, you should add a Provenance and this will be automatically linked to the "origin" of this update since there is no point in giving update date without the origin of who made the update. Moreover One provenance could be linked to a list of interests in order to state the same update and origin for a list of interests. That should perfectly match the needs.

Perhaps we could kepe the old "application" object in the model and changing the "origin" attribute to a link to an application. In that way we could add information on that APML-compliant application.

http://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apml01infomodelmodifiedso6.png

What do you think  ?

[Renato Iannella]

On 30 Sep 2008, at 22:30, Gérard Dupont wrote:

Perhaps we could kepe the old "application" object in the model and changing the "origin" attribute to a link to an application. In that way we could add information on that APML-compliant application.

http://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apml01infomodelmodifiedso6.png

What do you think  ?

Sure - but could it be simplified by "merging" Application into Provenance?

Renato