W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > August 2018

Re: [sdw] Discussion item: disjoint theoretical model / encodings cityGML

From: Josh Lieberman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:49:13 +0000
To: public-sdwig@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-412124555-1533916152-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
It’s worthwhile to note that many conceptual models (and this goes for many OGC models and most of the more successful TC211 specs) have been developed as generalizations of specific implementation specs. That accords with the core vs simple principles discussed in the OAB, that general cores or concepts are often the result of experience with specific, simpler implementations. When considering a variety of implementations, it’s particularly problematic to start with a full conceptual model, not knowing what can be implemented in XML vs JSON vs OWL, etc.

As far as conceptual modeling technology, it’s always been a bit odd to call UML a language. It’s more of a graphical formalism, although I understand that work is being done at OMG on more interoperable XMI. The question is also raised nowadays whether OWL might be a more useful conceptual modeling language, for a number of reasons, including a more straightforward implementation path. One conclusion of the various debates on this subject has been, perhaps surprisingly, that a good model narrative is almost always useful whichever methodology is ultimately followed.

—Josh

> On Aug 10, 2018, at 11:34 AM, ogcscotts <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> It is true that the LandInfra conceptual model was approved as a standard before the implementation parts were approved. Like with CityGML, very careful UML was developed in the conceptual model for Land Infra. I do know that the implementation work for Land Infra (standardized as InfaGML) was underway at the same time as those parts started the approval process pretty quickly behind the conceptual model. Minor correction to Peter's comment: there was not a corrigendum to the conceptual model, but it did get an update after the public comment period mostly as a result of the work on implementation.
> 
> We had an interesting debate at the 2015 Boulder meeting on whether UML or other modeling languages should be required in OGC standards. The results was "encouraged, not required." As other SWG talk about splitting their conceptual from implementation models, I think that a little more rigor in model evaluation will likely need to occur.
> 
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1069#issuecomment-412119968>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExWhupAhfISEC1kGbOXx5XxgbU96zctks5uPagNgaJpZM4V2HHQ>.
> 



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by lieberjosh
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1069#issuecomment-412124555 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 10 August 2018 15:49:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:50 UTC