ISO/IEC JTC1/SC32/WG2-EM0112-013R3013R4
Date:
2001-12-2128
Source: Tim Bourne, based onRay Gates, incorporating
comments on document
WG2-EM0112-013R32 and
VIC-019C
This
proposal takes 013R2 013R3 as its starting point, and adds
back those parts of VIC019C that are not covered there and still seem to be
relevantapplies
comments posted in
the forum during
the editing meeting..
[Note: Changes were tracked, so you can see them
explicitly by turning on revision marks.]
1.
Make
explicit, as in VIC019C, the distinction between several different choices that
must be made in assessing conformance. Delete first paragraph and proposer's note.
2.
Make
clearer the precise meaning of levels of conformance and of obligation.. Rewording of last
paragraph before heading 6.1.
3.
Replace
"interpret" by "recognize or act on".
4.
List and describe obligations in clause 6.3, in the order: "Mandatory",
"Conditional", Optional.
5.
Promote the Conformance
Level headings to Heading 3.
6.
Delete all reference to smallest permitted
maximum values, since no such limits are specified in this standard.
7.
Removal of the
"obsolete" qualifier from Registration Status, Related Data Reference
and Type of Relationship in 6.4. (The first
was never obsolete. The other two now
have mappings
due to recent changes.)
8.
In 6.5, allow conformance
to both Level 1 and Level 2.
9.
Complete editorial
changes re references to the standard as requested by ISO CS.
In this part of ISO/IEC
11179, "shall" is to be interpreted as a requirement on an
implementation; conversely, "shall not" is to be interpreted as a
prohibition. If a "shall" or
"shall not" requirement is violated, the behavior is undefined. Undefined behavior is otherwise indicated in
this part of ISO/IEC 11179 by the words "undefined behavior" or by
the omission of any explicit definition of behavior. There is no difference in emphasis among these three; they all
describe "behavior that is undefined".
PROPOSER’S NOTE: Isn’t the above covered adequately in ISO Directives?
It could also be argued that Part 3 no longer specifies “behaviour” at all.
This part of ISO/IEC
11179 prescribes a conceptual model, not a physical implementation. Therefore, the metamodel need not be
physically implemented exactly as specified. However, it must be possible to
unambiguously map between the implementation and the metamodel in both directions.
This part of ISO/IEC
11179 also prescribes a list of basic attributes for situation where a full
conceptual model is not required or not appropriate.
Conformance may be
claimed to the
either the conceptual model, or the basic attributes or both; see 6.2.
Conformance claims may beshall expressed in terms of a number of areas, in each of
which choices must be madespecify a Degree and a Level of Conformance, as
described below.
The distinction between "strictly
conforming" and "conforming" implementations is necessary to
address the simultaneous needs for interoperability and extensions. This part of
ISO/IEC 11179Standard describes specifications that promote
interoperability. Extensions are
motivated by needs of users, vendors, institutions, and industries, and:
(1) are not directly specified by
this part of ISO/IEC 11179Standard,
(2) are specified and agreed to
outside this part of ISO/IEC 11179Standard, and
(3) may serve as trial usage for
future editions of this part of ISO/IEC 11179Standard.
A strictly conforming implementation may be limited
in usefulness but is maximally interoperable with respect to this part of ISO/IEC 11179Standard. A conforming implementation may be more useful,
but may be less interoperable with respect to this part of ISO/IEC 11179Standard.
The following sub-clauses define
strictly conforming implementations and conforming implementations.
The distinction between
"strictly conforming" and "conforming" implementations is
necessary for addressing the simultaneous need for interoperability and the
need for extensions. Extensions are
motivated by needs of users, vendors, institutions, and industries.
A strictly conforming
implementation:
1) shall support all
mandatory, optional and conditional data element attributes and relationships;
2) shall not use,
test, access, or probe for any extension features nor extensions to data
element attributes;
3) shall not exceed
limits nor smallest permitted maximum values specified by this part of ISO/IEC
11179; and
43) shall not recognize, nor act on,interpret
nor allow the production of data element attributes that are dependent on any
unspecified, undefined, or implementation-defined behavior.
PROPOSER’S NOTE: Is “interpret”
a good word to use here? Would it be clearer to say “shall not recognize nor
act on, nor allow …”?
NOTE The use of extensions to the metamodel or the basic attributes may cause undefined behavior.
A conforming implementation:
1) shall support all
mandatory, optional and conditional data element attributes and relationships;
2) as permitted by the
implementation, may use, test, access, or probe for extension features or
extensions to data element attributes;
3) as permitted by the
implementation, may exceed limits or smallest permitted maximum values
specified by this part of ISO/IEC 11179; and
43) may recognize, act on, orinterpret
or allow the production of data element attributes that are
dependent on implementation-defined behavior.
NOTE 1: All strictly conforming implementations are also conforming implementations.
NOTE 2: The use of extensions to the metamodel or the basic attributes may cause undefined behavior.
An implementation may conform to either of two
levels of conformance to this standard:
Only those metadata elements,
relationships and properties specified in Clause 5 are supported and used;
All metadata elements,
relationships and properties specified in Clause 4 are supported and may be
used.
Properties and relationships specified in this part of ISO/IEC 11179standard are stated to be Mandatory, Optional or Conditional or Optional.
For the purpose
of conformance:,
1. Mandatory
properties and relationships shall exist, and shall conform to the provisions
of this part of ISO/IEC 11179.
2. aAnything specified as Conditional
within this part of ISO/IEC 11179standard shall be treated as Mandatory if the associated
condition is satisfied, and shall otherwise be not present.
3. Mandatory
properties and relationships shall exist, and shall conform to the provisions
of this standard. Optional
properties and relationships are not required to exist, but if they do exist
they shall conform to the provisions of this part of ISO/IEC 11179standard.
Such obligation is enforced if and only if the
Registration Status of the associated metadata elementitems is Recorded or higher.
PROPOSER’S NOTE: Does
this subclause say enough? Is it
useful?
The following are the registry
items and their obligation attributes in the ISO/IEC 11179-3:1994 edition of this Standard, and the current longevity attributeswhether each item is now
considered obsolete:
·
Identifying: Name (mandatory), Identifier
(conditional), Version (conditional), Registration Authority (conditional),
Synonymous Name (optional, obsolete),
Context (conditional)
·
Definitional: Definition (mandatory)
·
Relational: Classification Scheme
(optional), Keywords (optional, obsolete),
Related Data Reference (optional, obsolete), Type of
Relationship (conditional, obsolete)
·
Representational: Representation Category
(mandatory, obsolete), Form of
Representation (mandatory, obsolete),
Datatype of Data Element Values (mandatory), Maximum Size of Data Element
Values (mandatory), Minimum Size of Data Element Values (mandatory, obsolete), Layout of Representation
(conditional, obsolete), Permissible
Data Element Values (mandatory, obsolete)
·
Administrative: Responsible Organization
(optional), Registration Status (conditional, obsolete),
Submitting Organization (optional), Comments (optional)
Annex F relates the ISO/IEC 11179-3:attributes of the 1994 attributes to the new metamodel.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
The reference to
Annex F will need to be renumbered.
An implementation claiming conformance to this part of ISO/IEC 11179standard shall include an Implementation Conformance
Statement stating:
1)
whether it
conforms or strictly conforms (6.1);
2)
whether
conformance is to Level 1, or Level
2 (6.2) or both;
3)
what
extensions are supported or used.
Conformance needs to
be considered in the context of the roles and responsibilities of registration
authorities, as covered by ISO/IEC 11179-6: Registration of data elements.
Extended conformance
of systems requires formalisation of procedures, agreement of roles and
responsibilities between parties, and guidelines addressing use of software products
and conversions from other systems. The formalisation of these aspects must be
consistent with the conformance requirements in the above clauses, and roles of
registration authorities as set out in ISO/IEC 11179-6.
The simplification of
clause 6 results in several terms no longer being used.
The following terms
and definitions should be deleted from clause 3:
·
consume
·
generate
·
interpret
·
metadata entry
application
·
metadata reader
application
·
metadata set
·
produce
The following terms
and
definitions areis used elsewhere in the document, so needs to be retained:
·
binding – used in
clause 1.3.
·interpret – used in clause 6.1.2 and 6.1.3, but
remove the NOTE and Editor's NOTE from clause 3.1.14 (in EM008).