User Tools

Site Tools


mvf:scenarios

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
mvf:scenarios [2017/06/21 20:42]
fred.a.cummins_gmail.com [Users control vocabulary relationships]
mvf:scenarios [2019/04/19 18:18] (current)
admin [Formal language formulations in vocabularies]
Line 173: Line 173:
 As worded above, the only link between the terms and definitions for the same concept in multiple language vocabularies is the model element (which would satisfy the RFP intent). ​ It should, however, be possible in creating and maintaining vocabularies to make such links as annotations to a vocabulary entry, and then to include those links in the exported vocabulary file.  In that case, the model element need only to point to one of them, and implicitly refer to the others transitively. As worded above, the only link between the terms and definitions for the same concept in multiple language vocabularies is the model element (which would satisfy the RFP intent). ​ It should, however, be possible in creating and maintaining vocabularies to make such links as annotations to a vocabulary entry, and then to include those links in the exported vocabulary file.  In that case, the model element need only to point to one of them, and implicitly refer to the others transitively.
  
 +[fac] Within a single modeling environment,​ or a single, shared vocabulary library, each concept must have a distinct element. ​ Similarly, each concept must have one definition, although that definition may be expressed differently in different vocabularies unless there is a formal expression language that enables the same definition to be expressed in the languages of different vocabularies.
  
 +[fac] However, when vocabularies are shared, the user may need some of the same concepts and may have new concepts to add.  The fundamental problem is for the user to determine if there is a concept already defined or if a new concept is needed. ​ If the shared vocabularies include a vocabulary in a language familiar to the user then the search for a defined concept is easier, but candidate concepts may still not meet the user's requirement. ​ If there is no familiar-language vocabulary, then the user has a more difficult problem. ​ We might assume that there is an appropriate vocabulary for the modeling language, but the user will still need the help of somebody who can interpret definitions in one of the existing vocabularies..
  
 +[fac] Note that a vocabulary library (a set of vocabularies) will have one concept element for each concept that is linked to the element for the associated term in each vocabulary. ​ Consequently,​ when a user wants to use and existing vocabulary library, either for a new model or to add vocabularies to an existing library, There is a need to support a mechanism for finding a concept if a needed concept exists in the library. ​ A couple approaches are possible: (1) provide a thesaurus to group similar concepts (requires the user to update the thesaurus when adding a concept), or (2) provide a taxonomy/​classification network that traces general concepts to more specific concepts (easier for the user to update for new concepts).
  
 +[fac] Defining a global identifier for each concept does not help since the user must still search for a desired concept and possibly refine an existing concept definition to distinguish a new concept.
 ==== Formal language formulations in vocabularies ==== ==== Formal language formulations in vocabularies ====
  
Line 182: Line 186:
 [fac] This represents a substantial ​ investment for specification of formulations and associated vocabularies. ​ Maybe SMIF will address this.  Once the formulation language and concepts are established,​ then the formulations for individual concepts must be specified. ​ This is not likely to be a task for typical users of the modeling tools, and there must be business value realized by the developers of these formulations. ​ [fac] This represents a substantial ​ investment for specification of formulations and associated vocabularies. ​ Maybe SMIF will address this.  Once the formulation language and concepts are established,​ then the formulations for individual concepts must be specified. ​ This is not likely to be a task for typical users of the modeling tools, and there must be business value realized by the developers of these formulations. ​
  
-[ejb] MVF only needs to allow for this.  There is no reason why an OWL model or an OCL model cannot be viewed as a "​vocabulary",​ in which the model elements are entries that have terms (model element names) and perhaps formulations in the language (in OWL EquivalentClasses or EquivalentProperties,​ in OCL def or inv).  In a similar way, an SBVR Structured English definition is a formulation in a formal language, not a natural language. In any formal language, as in any natural language, some terms are "​primitive";​ the modeler does not provide definitions. ​ So such "​vocabularies"​ can be considered to be yet another representation of a concept set in some language, and model elements in models can be linked to them.  The only additional concern for these formal languages is the inclusion of "​rules"​ or "​axioms"​ that are not definitions,​ but are treated as part of the formal language "​corpus"​.  ​+[ejb] MVF only needs to allow for this.  There is no reason why an OWL model or an OCL model cannot be viewed as a "​vocabulary",​ in which the model elements are entries that have terms (model element names) and perhaps formulations in the language (in OWL EquivalentClasses or EquivalentProperties,​ in OCL def or inv).  In a similar way, an SBVR Structured English definition is a formulation in a formal language, not a natural language. In any formal language, as in any natural language, some terms are "​primitive";​ the modeler does not provide definitions. ​ So such "​vocabularies"​ can be considered to be yet another representation of a concept set in some language, and model elements in models can be linked to them.  The only additional concern for these formal languages is the inclusion of "​rules"​ or "​axioms"​ that are not definitions,​ but are treated as part of the formal language "​corpus"​
 + 
 +[fac] The use of a formal language would have a significant impact on the MVF metamodel: each concept would have a single definition.  ​The definition specified in a formal language could be expressed in a terms from a user's selected vocabulary. ​ This is quite different from the need to express each concept definition in multiple vocabularies,​ at least for alternative natural languages, but possibly the vernaculars/​dialects of multiple communities. 
 + 
 +[fac] A formal language would also facilitate automated identification of equivalent or similar concept definitions. 
 + 
 +=== Mayo Clinic Examples and Potential Interface Discussion === 
 + 
 +This presentation includes some thoughts by Mayo of how they would like to use the APIs produced by this specification. See {{ :​mvf:​mvf_discussion-mayo-20190419.pptx |}} 
  
 [[http://​www.omgwiki.org/​mvf-rfp/​doku.php?​id=start|home]] [[http://​www.omgwiki.org/​mvf-rfp/​doku.php?​id=start|home]]
  
  
mvf/scenarios.1498077749.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/06/21 20:42 by fred.a.cummins_gmail.com