ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N 2275
Date: 2012-10-13
REPLACES: —
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Data Management and Interchange
Secretariat: United States of America (ANSI)
Administered by Farance Inc. on behalf of ANSI
DOCUMENT TYPE / Summary of Voting/Table of RepliesTITLE / Summary of Voting on 32N2266 ISO/IEC CD2 19763-6 Information technology - Metamodel framework for interoperability (MFI) Part 6: Registry summary
SOURCE / SC32 Secretariat
PROJECT NUMBER / 1.32.22.01.06.00
STATUS / WG2 is requested to resolve the comments. The document did not obtain substantial support.
REFERENCES
ACTION ID. / ACT
REQUESTED ACTION
DUE DATE
Number of Pages / 34
LANGUAGE USED / English
DISTRIBUTION / P & L Members
SC Chair
WG Conveners and Secretaries
Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America
Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail:
available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/
*Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N2275
Summary of Voting on Document SC 32 N 2266
Title: ISO/IEC CD2 19763-6 Information technology - Metamodel framework for interoperability (MFI) Part 6: Registry summary
Project: 1.32.22.01.06.00
“P” Member / Approval / Approval with Comments / Disapproval with Comments / Abstention with CommentsCanada / 1
China / 1
Czech Republic / 1
Egypt / 1
Finland / 1
Germany / 1
India / 1
Japan / 1
Korea, Republic of / 1
Portugal / 1
Russian Federation / 1
Sweden / 1
United Kingdom / 1
United States / 1
Total “P” / 5 / 0 / 3 / 6
“O” Member
Austria
Belgium
France / 1
Ghana
Hungary
Indonesia
Italy / 1
Kazakhstan
Netherlands, The
Norway
Romania
Poland / 1
Switzerland
Total “O”
Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32
Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America
Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail:
available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/
*Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI
COMMENTS:
Canada
NO. See comments below:
Finland
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
Germany
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
India
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
Japan
NO. See comments below:
Portugal
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
Sweden
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
United Kingdom
ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.
United States
NO. See comments below:
Canadian Comments on SC32 N2266 CD2 19763-6 / Date: 2012-12-25 / Document:1 / 2 / (3) / 4 / 5 / (6) / (7)
MB1
/ Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1) / Paragraph/
Figure/Table/Note
(e.g. Table 1) / Type of com-ment2 / Comment (justification for change) by the MB / Proposed change by the MB / Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
CA01 / 0-Ballot / - / Ge / Canada has voted ‘Disapprove with Comments’ on this ballot, for the reasons stated below. Canada will change its vote to Approval on satisfactory resolution of these comments. / See detailed comments below. / --
CA02 / 1-Scope / Heading 1.1 / Ed / The heading 1.1 General is redundant, since there is no other subclause with the Scope clause. / Delete the heading. / Accept
CA03 / 1-Scope / Para 1, line 1 / Te / The items that may be registered are listed as:
models, ontology, process models, services and roles & goals / 1) ‘models’ is too generic, and would include ‘process models’ which are listed separately. We should include ‘information models’
2) ‘ontology’ is singular, while all the other items are listed in the plural. Change ‘ontology’ to ‘ontologies’.
Replace by:
models (including information models and process models), ontologies, services, and roles & goals / Accept
CA04 / 1-Scope / Paras 3, 4. / Ed / Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the scope are repetitive and not well structured:
This part of the ISO/IEC 19763 family of standards defines the information which we call the Registry Summary. And they provide administrative information. The Registry Summary consists of administrative artifacts that communicate the registry management, registry contents and registry access.
This part of the ISO/IEC 19763 family specifies a normative metamodel that specifies the registry summary information. / Suggest rewriting as:
This part of the ISO/IEC 19763 family specifies a normative metamodel for a Registry Summary, which provides administrative information about registry management, registry contents and registry access. / See JP06.
CA05 / 3.1 / Numbering / Ed / There are two subclauses numbered 3.1. / Correct the numbering of the subclauses. / Accept
CA06 / 3.1, 3.2 / Definition context / Ed / The definitions for the terms ‘attribute’ and ‘class’ are qualified as being in the context of a ‘metamodel’. The correct syntax for specifying the context is to use angle brackets (‘á’,’ñ’) not quotes.
The use of quotes appears to have been a response to a Canadian comment on the CD ballot which pointed out that the angle brackets were not displaying properly in the pdf version of the document. The solution proposed by Canada was to ensure the PDF converter properly supports the required fonts, and this proposal was accepted according to the resolution of comments in 32N2267. However, instead the angle brackets were changed to quotes. / Change ‘metamodel’ to ámetamodelñ.
If the angle brackets above cannot be made to work, use ‘<’ and ‘>’ rather than quotes.
Note that 32N1983 FCD 11179-3 shows that the angle brackets can be properly rendered in PDF. / Accept
CA07 / 3.4 / All / Ed / Clause 3,1 includes all terms and definitions from 11179-6 by reference, so it is not necessary to include individual terms. / Delete 3.4 metadata register. / Accept
CA08 / 3.5 / Term / Ed / System is misspelled. / Correct the spelling. / Accept
CA09 / 3.5 / Notes / Ed / The first note says that the definition is ‘adopted’ from 11179-1:2004. Probably ‘adapted’ is the intended word. However, a better source would be 11179-3:2012, since this already contains the second note. The definition has not been changed from the referenced source. ‘Registry system’ has been added as a new synonym. This should be explicitly stated. / Change the entry as follows:
metadata registry
MDR
registry system
information system for registering metadata
NOTE 1 The associated information store or database is known as a metadata register.
[ISO/IEC FDIS 11179-3:2012, 3.2.78]
NOTE 2 registry system has been added as a new synonym.
The note that is in the referenced entry should precede the reference, and the note added by this document should follow the reference. The second notes should be numbered so they can be individually referenced. / Accept
CA10 / 3.7 / Terms / Te / The terms referencing registry and registry of registries should not be treated as synonyms.
We should allow any registry to reference another registry, but reserve registry of registries for a registry that provides only references to other registries. / Create separate entries for:
referencing registry
registry that references another registry
NOTE A registry summary provides reference capability.
registry of registries
registry intended specifically to hold references to other registries
NOTE A registry of registries is a referencing registry, but the reverse is not necessarily true. / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA11 / 5.2.3 / item b) / Ed / The first reference in the sentence to clause 7 uses ‘specified by’ instead of the usual ‘specified in’.
The second reference is missing a word completely. / For consistency, and to avoid confusion, always used ‘specified in’ clause 7. / Accept
CA12 / 6.1 / Line 1 / Te / The types of metamodels are listed as:
models, ontology, process models, services and roles & goals / 1) ‘models’ is too generic, and would include ‘process models’ which are listed separately. Qualify as ‘information models’
2) ‘ontology’ is singular, while all the other items are listed in the plural. Change ‘ontology’ to ‘ontologies’. / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA13 / 6.1 / Line 3 / Ed / ‘in which registry’ would be better than ‘with which registry’ / Make the change. / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA14 / 6.1 / Line 4 / Ed / The following sentence does not read well and needs to be rewritten:
“This part defines location metamodel for the summary data about the registry where the information the user needs resides.” / Rewrite as follows:
“This part of 19763 defines a metamodel for the Registry Summary data required to locate and access a registry.” / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA15 / 6.2 / Para 1, 2nd sentence / Ed / The sentence:
“Referenced registry where stores metamodels which other part of ISO/IEC 19763 defined.”
needs rewriting to:
1) Improve English grammar
2) Clarify what is contained in the referenced registry, since a registry contains “metadata about models (or whatever)”, not the models themselves, and not metamodels.
3) Clarify that since this standard is attempting to support heteregenous registries, they will not necessarily be based on 19763.
Also, it may be clearer to reverse the descriptions of referencing and referenced registries. / Replace the sentence by:
“A Referenced registry is one which contains the metadata being referenced. Such metadata may confirm to some other part of ISO/IEC 19763 or to ISO/IEC 11179-3, or some other standard.” / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA16 / 6.2 / Para 1, 3rd sentence / Ed / The sentence:
“Referencing registry is Registry of Registries (RoR) which collects and accommodates Registry Summary data which each registry generates.”
needs rewriting to:
1) Clarify the distinction between “Referencing registry” and “Registry of Registries”
2) Improve English grammar. / Replace the sentence by:
“A Referencing registry is one which references another registry, for example via a Registry Summary that describes it. A Registry of Registries (RoR) is a special registry whose primary purpose is to maintain Registry Summaries about other registries.” / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA17 / 6.2 / Figure 1 caption / Ed / The caption for Figure 1 (Structure of MFI Registry (Conceptual model)) does not accurately reflect the Figure. / Replace with:
“Figure 1 - Illustration of use of Registry Summaries” / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA18 / 6.2 / Para 2, sentences 1, 2 and 3 / Ed / The sentences:
“Model Registry and Ontlogy Registry in Figure 1 are Referenced Registry which stores metamodels of information models. RoR and MyRoR in Figure 1 are Referencing Registry. RoR (and MyRoR) collect and publish Registry Summary data that is published by Referenced Registry.”
needs rewriting to:
1) Improve English grammar
2) Clarify what is contained in the referenced registry, since a registry contains “metadata about models (or whatever)”, not the models themselves, and not metamodels.
3) Clarify the use of RS. / Replace the sentences by:
“In figure 1, RoR and MyRoR illustrate “Registries of Registries” (and thus also “Referencing Registries”, while Model Registry and Ontology Registry illustrate “Referenced Registries” which contain metadata about models and ontologies respectively. “RS” illustrates a Registry Summary used by a Referencing registry to access a Referenced registry.” / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA19 / 6.2 / Para 2, 4th sentence / Ed / The sentence:
“This part of ISO/IEC 19763 defines that two or more RoR(s) which specialized in the specific domain exist as shown in Figure 1.”
should be deleted or rewritten, since the registries shown in Figure 1 are just examples and are specifically defined by this part. / Delete the sentence. / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13
CA20 / 6.2 / Para 3 / Ed / The paragraph:
“When Registry User in Figure 1 looks for information models. First, Registry User looks for registry with metamodels of information models needed searching Registry Summary data which RoR (and/or MyRoR) stores. As a result, Registry User can specify Referenced Registry which stores the metamodels of information models which Registry User needs. And the Registry User can learn the service period and access method of registry by Registry Summary data. Finaly, Registry User can obtain metamodels of information models from the specified registry based on the access information indicated to Registry Summary.”
Needs rewriting. / Replace by:
“Figure 1 illustrates a Registry User looking for information models. First, the Registry User searches Registry Summary data contained in RoR (and/or MyRoR) looking for a registry containing metadata about information models. From the search results, the user can identify a Referenced Registry which has the metadata for required the information models. The Registry User can also learn the service period and access method of the Referenced Registry from its Registry Summary data, allowing the Registry User to access the Referenced Registry to obtain the metadata about the information models needed. That metadata in turn will allow the user to locate and access the information models themselves.” / Revise clause 6.
See JP10 to JP13