TLO and IDM published!
matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk
Dear Colleagues,
Just to let you know the IDM and TLO papers have been published here:
https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/news/publication-top-level-ontologies-and-industry-data-models
Alex Luck has written an introductory blog here:
Regards
Matthew West
Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme
https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/what-we-do/national-digital-twin-programme
ian.co...@mottmac.com
Data models - it would be an impossible task to be comprehensive, so this has to be a sample, and it was good to see the ISO TS 14812 included which is relevant to my primary application domain of traffic. Would you agree that the focus of the IDM paper is on static infrastructure for a place rather than dynamic events that happen in that place? If so then it's not surprising that the major models from the traffic and public transport domains are not included. I can provide further details on those models if they become of interest.
Ian Cornwell, Mott MacDonald
David Leal
Dear Ian,
You are right about the initial focus of the Data Models survey. However, a new edition is in preparation, so models from the traffic and public transport domains will be of interest. I will be grateful to be pointed in the right direction.
The new edition will also describe models for Government information exchange, defence and recent work on digital twins for buildings and real estate.
Best regards,
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/8f6ca818-679d-40ba-a5ca-a708e6cf644fn%40googlegroups.com.
-- CAESAR Systems Limited mob: +44 77 0702 6926 registered address: 56 Micheldever Road, London, SE12 8LU, UK company number: 02422371 VAT number: 548 0510 55
matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk
Dear Ian,
David has answered about the Industry Data Model Survey. See my responses below to other points.
Hi all, I am only just getting round to posting here for the first time. These two papers were interesting. A thought on each:
Top level ontologies - I note that this includes a surprising range of kinds of specifications - generic metamodels like UML and OWL along with totally different things like Dublin Core, a specific vocabulary.
[MW] Yes, we were a little surprised at the wide range of things that seemed to be proposed as TLOs. The survey is non-judgemental at that level, but seeks to identify their characteristics that will lead to us determining what kind of TLO will best meet our needs. Also spreading the net widely means a larger resource we can draw from as we move forward.
I was also surprised that the analysis doesn't seem to cover practical considerations like tool support and existing acceptance levels in technical communities - don't you think those things are also important?
[MW] Tool support is generally related to language, and translating an ontology from one language to another is tedious, but not a serious consideration compared to whether it meets our requirements. It’s pretty much the same argument for acceptance levels, meeting our requirements trumps just about everything, because we are not keen to fail because we have gone with what is popular. Any decision we make is not imposed on anyone in the sense that the FDM/RDL will be an interlingua, not a lingua franca. So it will be like the case when the Italian, German, and Spaniard meet and decide to speak in English rather than have lots of translators. It does not mean they have to adopt English when they go home.
Although the work has made an effort to be fairly comprehensive, another metamodel I would like to see considered, because I've found it useful, is UN/CEFACT core components; as a complete and supported specification it seems to have stalled or died some time ago, but some of its ideas are useful for the relation of ontology development to implementable data model development.
[MW] Thank you for that. I presume this is what you mean.
https://www.unece.org/cefact/codesfortrade/unccl/ccl_index.html
Regards
Matthew West
Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme
https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/what-we-do/national-digital-twin-programme
Data models - it would be an impossible task to be comprehensive, so this has to be a sample, and it was good to see the ISO TS 14812 included which is relevant to my primary application domain of traffic. Would you agree that the focus of the IDM paper is on static infrastructure for a place rather than dynamic events that happen in that place? If so then it's not surprising that the major models from the traffic and public transport domains are not included. I can provide further details on those models if they become of interest.
Ian Cornwell, Mott MacDonald
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 1:20:26 PM UTC Matthew West wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Just to let you know the IDM and TLO papers have been published here:
https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/news/publication-top-level-ontologies-and-industry-data-models
Alex Luck has written an introductory blog here:
Matthew West
Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme
https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/what-we-do/national-digital-twin-programme
--
ian.co...@mottmac.com
Thanks Matthew and David.
Core components – that link from Matthew is to the library of components developed using the core components technical specification, but as a top level ontology at a similar level to others in the survey I was thinking of the core components technical specification itself (Microsoft Word - CEFACT-CCTS-Version-2pt01 Final.doc (unece.org). A document that shows how core components can be used in bottom-up ontology development is ISO TR 25100:2012 (not the earlier edition). (I had thought the UN/CEFACT core components effort might be dormant because the main spec is from 2003, but your link shows it’s still supporting ongoing data model development.)
My colleague Peter El Haj has just told me about the template for missing TLOs and IDMs so I will look to use that to share this and the dynamic data models via the hub.
While I agree that the TLO meeting requirements is critical, I still think that existing acceptance should have some weight. In the analogy about English, I assume it was the starting point of familiarity of English which made it the practical choice, more than any inherent technical qualities.