ISO-IEC 11179 Metadata Registry Standard <br> Issues Raised and Discussed at XMDR Project Meeting 16 March, 2005

Issue 136: Directed relationships
Submitter/Source B. Bargmeyer & K. Keck Severity Minor technical
Date Submitted: 2004-10-20 Status Open
Proposal:
Make relationships directed. That is, differentiate the two "association" or "related to" end points. This applies to the "classification_scheme_item_relationship" in Section 4.10, the "data_element_concept_relationship" in Section 4.11, and the “conceptual_domain_relationship” and “value_domain_relationship” in Section 4.12.
Associate a directed relationship with its inverse.

Reason:
Many relationships are not symmetric. Examples include "part-of", "is-a", "narrower-than" and "causes". In addition, using RDF terminology this could specify "subject" and "object".
The inverse of a symmetrical relationship is itself. This avoids the necessity for having a non-uniform model (non-normalized), i.e., a symmetric relationship can be precisely represented as a directed relationship which is its own inverse.
Proposed Text Changes:
The proposed changes affect the diagrams (as shown for Figure 7), but do not require any changes to other text of Part 3.
Issues:
Note that in Clause 4.11, "concept_relation" is directed, but no inverse is specified.

In Clause 4.10: clasification_scheme_item_relationship_type_description, replace the "string" value to a relation instance

3. Rename the "horizontal" role and association names in Clause 4.7.3, Figure 3. E.g., Value_Domain should not have the role "representing" going in two directions. The association name "data_element_representation" may be impacted by the change in role names. Note that the role between the top two boxes is labeled "having" and "specifying", while the role between the bottom two boxes is labeled "represented_by" and "representing". The relationship between the upper two boxes and bottom two should be symmetric. Also, "having" could better be "specified_by". (We also have possible alternate proposals for labels.)
Discussion/Notes:

********************************************************

Issue 1xx: Make relationships types administered items
Submitter/Source: B. Bargmeyer, K. Keck, J.McCarthy Severity ?Minor technical?
Date Submitted: 2005-02-08 Status Open
Proposal:
Make relationships first-class administered items. Add new types of meta-metadata for relationships, including a required bipartite relationship-type. That is,
Reason:

Proposed Text Changes:

Issues:

Discussion/Notes:
The relationship could be managed as part of the structure in which they are involved. Alternatively, in Clauses 4.10 and 4.11, possibly treat the subject role as an aggregate association. This is an alternative way of administering relationships, more in line with current practice.
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 1yy: Add optional relationship-type meta-attribute for relationships
Submitter/Source: B. Bargmeyer, K. Keck, J.McCarthy Severity ?Minor technical?
Date Submitted: 2005-02-08 Status Open
Proposal:
Add an optional, bipartite relationship-type meta-attribute for relationships to the 11179-part 3 metamodel. That is, …

Reason:

Proposed Text Changes:

Issues:

Discussion/Notes:

Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 1zz: Use (meta-)value domains to manage relationship-types
Submitter/Source: B. Bargmeyer, K. Keck, J.McCarthy Severity ?Minor technical?
Date Submitted: 2005-02-08 Status Open
Proposal:
Use (meta-)value domains to manage meta-metadata about relationship-types for relationships in 11179-part 3 metamodels.

Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 1aa: Identify the types of correspondences between concepts.??
Submitter/Source: B. Bargmeyer, K. Keck, J.McCarthy Severity ?Minor technical?
Date Submitted: 2005-03-13 Status Open
Proposal:
Identify the types of correspondences between concepts. The point is to record the types of overlap between the concepts. An alternative is translation tables, which record pairs of IDs linking concepts without any more specific "type" information.
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:

Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 1bb: Need Context for definition (as well as name) in P3??
Submitter/Source: B. Bargmeyer, K. Keck, J.McCarthy Severity ?Minor technical?
Date Submitted: 2005-03-13 Status Open
Proposal:

Reason:

Proposed Text Changes:

Issues:

Discussion/Notes:

Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Part 2 issues:

Issue: 2a: Consider renaming "Classification Scheme" in 11179 Part 2 to "Concept System" from the TC 37 standards, (per ISO 1087) suggestion make it "Registry Semantics"
Issue 2b: Consider potential link of "meanings" in Classification Scheme to Conceptual Domain
Issue 2c: What is the potential scope of material to be registered in 11179 Part 2?
Issue 2d: Register anything that tries to help control the semantics of an information system.
Issue 2e: Perhaps register definitions in natural language and a formal language
Issue 2f: Express ISO/IEC 11179 Metamodel as an OWL Ontology
Issue 2g: Express ISO/IEC 11179 Metamodel as Common Logic Ontology
Issue 2h: What does conformance to new Part 2 mean ?
Issue 2i: Rename ISO/IEC 11179 Part 2 to be ...
Issue 2j: Encode axioms in the data model, not as strings, nor just as asbstract syntax trees.
Issue 2k: Make relationships an administered item
Issue 2l: Relationships need attributes, e.g., relationship types.
Issue 2n: Relationship type can have a value domain, hence can be a simple attribute, but rather an entity in its own right.
Issue 2o: Relationships types should be classified items
Issue 2p: Order of concepts in hierarchical concept
Issue 2q: Cardinality constraint for each end of a relationship
Issue 2r: Provide a means to encode clustered groups as a "classification scheme" (or some such) (Groups may or may not be disjoint).
Issue 2s: Encode derivation rules in the data model, not as strings, not just abstract syntax trees.
Issue 2t: Register axiom modules as administered items.
Issue 2u: Register ontologies as administered items.
Issue 2v: Register alternative axiomatic representations of an ontology (or perhaps subset)
Issue 2w: Represent rule templates (for groups of rules) in data model
Issue 2x: Extend Iso/IEC 11179 to encode metadata for knowledgebases, e.g., for knowledgebase administration (design, etc.)

********************************************************

Issue ###:
Proposal:
Submitter:
Date submitted:
Status:
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue Issue: 2a:
Proposal:
Consider renaming "Classification Scheme" in 11179 Part 2 to "Concept System" from the TC 37 standards, e.g, ISO 1087
Submitter:
Date submitted:
Status:
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue Issue 2b
Proposal:
Consider linking "meanings" in Classification Scheme to Conceptual Domains
Submitter:
Date submitted:
Status:
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 2c:
Proposal:
What is the potential scope of material to be registered in 11179 Part 2? Submitter:
Date submitted:
Status:
Reason:
We want do consider different possible scopes, either references to code sets, or inclusion of code sets, ... Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 2d:
Proposal:
Register anything that tries to help control the semantics of an information Submitter:
Date submitted:
Status:
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 2e:
Proposal:
Perhaps register definitions in natural language and a formal language
Submitter:
Date submitted:
Status:
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 2f:
Proposal:
Express ISO/IEC 11179 Metamodel as an OWL Ontology
Submitter:
Date submitted:
Status:
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 2g
Proposal:
Express ISO/IEC 11179 Metamodel as Common Logic Ontology
Proposer:
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue 2h:
Proposal:
What does conformance to new Part 2 mean ?
Proposer:
Denis Warzel (National Cancer Institute caDSR Team) Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************

Issue ###:
Proposal:
Reason:
Proposed Text Changes:
Issues:
Discussion/Notes:
Committee Proposed Resolution:
Draft Resolution
Draft Resolution Source
Implementation Status:
Final Resolution
Final Resolution Source

********************************************************