1 / 9

MFI-8: Changes based on the Comments from Redwood Meeting

This document outlines the changes made to the MFI-8 Metamodel based on the comments and feedback from the Redwood meeting. It addresses questions related to the concept of operation in role and goal metamodel, service discovery from goals, matching goals to service names, registering relationships between goals and services, and the appropriateness of creating direct relationships between goals and services. Other modifications to the metamodel are also discussed.

cbonds
Download Presentation

MFI-8: Changes based on the Comments from Redwood Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC32/WG2 N1522 MFI-8: Changes based on the Comments from Redwood Meeting Peng Liang, Keqing He, Zhao Li, Chong Wang, Jian Wang, Zaiwen Feng SKLSE, Wuhan University, P.R. China 2011.05.10

  2. Previous Metamodel of MFI-8 Constraint of Goals Role Goal Goal elements Goal decomposition from 32N2076

  3. Changes based on the comments from Redwood Meeting • Is the concept Operation in Role & Goal metamodel the same as the concept Operation in Service metamodel? • Editor: No, they have different meaning, and the concept Operation and Object in Role & Goal metamodel have been renamed to Goal_Operation and Goal_Object in order to address this issue.

  4. Changes based on the comments from Redwood Meeting • How to discover Services from Goal? • Editors: Currently, Service discovery from Goal is based on the traversal of service repository using the “achieves” relationship between Service and Goal (i.e., a Service achieves a Goal) if an “accomplish” relationship has been created between a Service and a Goal. Services can also be discovered by ontology annotation and matching since the Operation element in Goal and Service name have been semantically annotated by ontologies. • Does Service name include the information of Concept Operation and Object? Is there any algorithm to match Goal to Service name? • Editors: It is not necessary that Service name should include the information of Operation and Object, and consequently there is no algorithm to match Goal to Service name.

  5. Changes based on the comments from Redwood Meeting • What’s the relationship between Goal and Service? Where to register the relationships between Services and Goals? Who (which part) is responsible to manage the relationships between Services and Goals? • Editors: The relationship between Service and Goal is that “a Service achieves a Goal”. The relationship information between Service and Goal is registered in the Service registration information. The service repository is responsible to manage the relationship information between Service and Goal.

  6. Changes based on the comments from Redwood Meeting • Is that appropriate to create the relationship directly between Goal and Service? Is that more appropriate to create the relationships between Goal and Service through ontology? • Editors: There are 7 relationships between R, G, P, and S, which are defined and specified in MFI-9 (TR) for on-demand model selection. We don’t think it is appropriate to create a direct relationship between Goal and Service, because currently the relationship from Goal to Service is constructed dynamically by either (1) runtime traversal of service repository using “achieves” relationship between Service and Goal (i.e., a Service achieves a Goal), or (2) ontology annotation and matching from Goal to Process, and to Service. It is inflexible to create the direct relationship between Goal and Service for on-demand (service) model selection. • Editors: As an alternative solution, we employ the ontology (through ontology annotation and matching) to establish the relationships between Goal and Service using MFI-3. For example, the concept Operation and Object are annotated by ontology for better Process and Service discovery and matching.

  7. Other modifications • Modification of Forward section by following same style of MFI standard series • concept_URI is equal to Ontology_Atomic_Construct (of MFI Ontology registration) for ontology annotation • Move the Conformance clause after the Normative references, and Terms and Definitions Section. • Add several term definitions in Section 3 (Terms, definitions and abbreviated terms)

  8. Changed Metamodel of MFI-8 Modified version according to comments at Redwood meeting, Nov, 2010.

  9. Thanks for your questions and comments!

More Related