{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":7,"sheets":["ODM Mapping","SBVR mapping","Metadata - Existing","Metadata - Future","Metadata - Content Mgt","Context Metadata","Context metadata notes"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":2,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"ODM Mapping","index":0,"n_rows":36,"n_cols":21,"rows_kept":36,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Construct Requirement","Construct loose name","ODM draft base class","Draft ODM recommendation","Draft ODM stereotype","ODM 1.0 Base Class","Current ODM 1.0 stereotype","ODM 1.1 Base Class","ODM 1.1 Stereotype","SR EA base class(es)","SR label (existing)","SR New Base Class","SR new stereotype","English meaning","As ODM?","Rationale","Issues","Agreed action","Agreed?","Other comments","Open issues"]
["RDF Constructs","RDF"]
["Sub property","RDFS sub property","Generalization","Use generalization","None","Generalization","subPropertyOf",null,null,"Generalization (green)","from","Generalization (green)","subPropertyOf","sub relationship","N","Wanted in OWL toolbar though not OWL. Child of rdfsSubPropertyOf","review label, presence - non ODM but useful. ","Profile change to \"subPropertyOf per latest ODM. Now on the right toolbar","Y","not in spreadsheet reports. If we did have in reports, label it \"specialization of\"."]
["Sub-class","sub-class","Generalization","No stereotype","None","Generalization","subClassOf",null,null,"Generalization","Is","Generalization","subClassOf","Is a","N","Added stereotype to put in toolbar. ODM has no extension as semantics of Generalization are the same (Aristotle syllogism 'barbara')","used \"is\" instead, trying to avoid camelCase","Profile change to \"subClassOf per latest ODM. Now on the right toolbar","Y","This and 'from' are the only non OWL constructs in the toolbar."]
["Datatype","rdfsDatatype","Class","Class","rdfsDatatype","Datatype (UML)","rdfsDatatype",null,null,"Class","rdfsDatatype","Class","rdfsDatatype","Simple type","Y?","via RDFS metamodel and profile. ",null,null,null,"Child of RDFS Class which extends Class in RDFS Profile.","In the version of ODM inspected in EA it seems that RDFS Datatype is no longer a child of RDFS Class, and no longer seems to extend Class."]
["Type instance relationship","Type instance relationship",{"$nulls":5},"Dependency","rdfType","Instantiation","TypeOf","Dependency","rdfType","Type of","N","Use the RDF term which directly represents the UML Type-Instance relationship. Its stereotype is rdfType","This might be an ugly hack?",null,null,"In the end we use EA's method of dragging instantions of classes into diagrams to make objects. Use the Type Of relationship to identify what they are a type of. "]
["OWL constructs","OWL"]
["Class","Class","Class","Class","owlClass","Class","owlClass",null,null,"Class","owlClass","Class","owlClass","Thing","Y"]
["Object property","Object property","AssClass","Property, AssClass and others","owlObjectProperty","AssociationClass; Association; Property (UML)","objectProperty",null,"objectProperty","AssociationClass","owlObjectProperty","AssociationClass","objectProperty","Relationship Fact","Y"]
["Datatype Property","Datatype Property","Property","Use UML Property",null,"AssociationClass; Association; Property (UML)","datatypeProperty",null,null,"Attribute","owlDatatypeProperty","Attribute","datatypeProperty","Simple Fact","Y","Attribute does not exist in UML. Use Property. EA does not expose Property.","This may be an issue",null,null,"Longer term proposals on Object Properties. "]
["Union relation","Union relation","Covering Generalization Set","No stereotype","None","Covering Generalization Set; also plain Generalization","unionOf","Generalization; Dependency; GeneralizationSet, isCovering=True","unionOf","GeneralizationSet, isCovering=True","union","GeneralizationSet, isCovering=True","unionOf","Union","N","Added stereotype to put in toolbar. ODM 0 has no extension; current is unionOf - RENAME","Some issues in labelling consistency in reports (macros)","Use class that is explicitly UnionClass and IntersectionClass",null,"Probalby covered now. Do independently. "]
["Disjoint union relation","Disjoint union relation",{"$nulls":5},"Generalization; GeneralizationSet, isCovering=True, isDisjoint=True","disjointUnionOf","GeneralizationSet, isCovering=True, isDisjoint=True",null,"GeneralizationSet, isCovering=True, isDisjoint=True","disjointUnionOf",null,"New"]
["Intersection relation","Intersection relation",{"$nulls":5},"Dependency; Generalization","intersectionOf","Generalization",null,"Generalization","intersectionOf",null,"New"]
["Union Class","UnionClass","Class",null,"owlUnionClass",null,null,"Class","UnionClass",null,"owlUnionClass","Class","UnionClass",null,"Y","OWL2 has changed in that owlUnionClass is no longer a sub-class of owlClass"]
["Intersection Class","Intersection Class","Class",null,"owlIntersectionClass",null,null,null,"IntersectionClass"]
["Disjoint relation","disjointWith","Constraint",null,"disjointWith","Constraint","disjointWith","Dependency; Constraint","disjointWith","Association","disjointWith","Dependency","disjointWith","Mutually exclusive","N","Visual display needed an edge. Dependency now provides this - CHANGE BASE CLASS","To be changed","Change to Dependecy base type","Y","will need to redo content. Also may need to add disjoint to all applicable sets"]
["Inverse relationship","inverseOf","Association","?","inverseOf","Association","inverseOf","Dependency","inverseOf","Association","inverseOf","Dependency","inverseOf","Inverse","N","Visual display needed an edge. Change base class","Can't create inverse relationships across ontologies using Asoociation"]
["Individual","Individual","UML Instance Specification",null,"owlIndividual","UML Instance Specification","owlIndividual","UML Instance Specification","owlIndividual; NamedIndividual","Object (instance specification was not available in EA)","owlIndividual","InstanceSpecification","owlIndividual","Individual","N","EA does not provide UML Instance Specification.","Decide whether valid to use \"Object\". ",null,null,"Also see trace link to Singleton - not sure if this is correct? ","Tested in EA ODM Profiles - base class of Instance Specification, translates to Instance when profile is used, which is what we want. "]
["Named Individual","NamedIndividual",{"$nulls":5},"UML Instance Specification","NamedIndividual",null,null,"InstanceSpecification","NamedIndividual",null,null,"New in OWL2","Definitely need this"]
["Anonymous Individual","AnonymousIndividual",{"$nulls":5},"UML Instance Specification","AnonymousIndividual",null,null,"InstanceSpecification","AnonymousIndividual",null,null,"New in OWL2","Might need this. So keep it in."]
["OWL Annotation Property","OWL Annotation Property","UML Comment","rdfsComment",null,"AssociationClass; Association; Property (UML); Class","rdfsComment","AssociationClass; Association; Property (UML); Class","annotationProperty","Comment","owlAnnotationProperty (not used)","AssociationClass","annotationProperty","Annotation type","Y","This inherits from rdfProperty","We will want a scheme for different annotation properties for our extended terms. As well as regular use of OWL annotation properties","Use Association or Ass Class. Target could be a URI, a comment, a Web document etc. In UML this would be an instance specification with the URI. Example dc:source which points to the reference document. ",null,"Strategy: Ontology describes the things. Can have an \"ontology\" that describes the FpML etc. Then a mapping ontology maps the two. What I would prefer is the FpML as an XML schema, and mapping ontology relating ontology to schema."]
["OWL Ontology","OWL Ontology","Package","Stereotype on Package","owlOntology","Package","owlOntology","Package","owlOntology","Package","owlOntology","Package","owlOntology","Ontology","Y","No changes"]
["Equivalent Class","equivalentClass","Constraint",null,"equivalentClass","Constraint","equivalentClass","Constraint; Dependency","equivalentClass","Attribute","Not yet used","Dependency","equivalentClass","Equivalent Thing","N","Use Dependency","To be changed","Change to Dependecy base type"]
["Same As","sameAs","Constraint",null,"sameAs","Constraint","sameAs","Constraint; Dependency","sameAs","Constraint","Not yet used","Dependency","sameAs","Same Individual","Y","If used, want to change to an edge base type","To be changed","Change to Dependecy base type"]
["Different From","differentFrom","Constraint",null,"differentFrom","Constraint","differentFrom","Constraint; Dependency","differentFrom","Constraint","Not yet used","Dependency","differentFrom","Different Individual","n/a","Want to use this; change to edge e.g. Dependency","To be changed","Change to Dependecy base type",null,"Want to use this to indicate classifications of e.g. Swaps where legs are defined as different."]
["Selection of values","owlEnumeratedDataRange","None?","Enumeration",null,"UML Enumeration","dataRange","may change","may change","Enumeration","owlEnumeratedDataRange","Enumeration","dataRange","Selection","N","As ODM except we have stereotyped this. ","There is work to be done. UML has several kinds of enumerations. ","If we only use it for enumerations of string literals, and keep in mind the limitations of UML and work within these (no round trip) then this would not include round tripping."]
["Selection of Classes","EnumeratedClass","UML Class","enumeratedClass",null,"UML Class","enumeratedClass","UML Class","EnumeratedClass","Class",null,"Class","EnumeratedClass","Selection of Individuals","N/A","We should use this more"]
["OWL Import","owlImports","PackageImport","PackageImport",null,"packageImport","owlImport","packageImport","owlImport","PackageImport","owlImports","TBD","owlImport","Imports","N","May change the Base Class from PackageImport to Package Merge, for owlImports."]
["Annotation instance","Annotation instance",{"$nulls":9},"Dependency","annotationFact","Annotation. ","New","Instance of OWL Annotation Property"]
["Not in profiles as such"]
["Range","range of datatype property","N/A","datatype of attribute","N/A","can be rdfsDatatype or a DataRange",null,null,null,"N/A","N/A","N/A","N/A",null,"Y","Replaces Enumerated data Range. OWL 2 has DataRange. ODM 1.0 and 1.1 both have this (early draft had owlEnumeratedDataRange",null,null,null,"Also use multiplicity"]
["Deprecated"]
["Object property as text in box","Object property","Attribute","Property, AssClass and others",null,"No",null,null,null,"Attribute","owlObjectProperty","Deprecate?","objectProperty","Relationship Fact","N?","Reduce lines; referenceable archetype.","OWL2 has alt fix for this",null,null,"Work on this after the PoC"]
["Unused"]
["inverseProperty",{"$nulls":6},"Property; also AssClass by inheritance","inverseProperty",null,null,"AssClass by inheritance from objectProperty","inverseProperty",null,"New",{"$nulls":4},"Made these blue in case they come up."]
["propertyChain",{"$nulls":6},"Property; also AssClass by inheritance","propertyChain",null,null,"AssClass by inheritance from objectProperty","propertyChain",null,"New",{"$nulls":4},"Made these blue in case they come up."]

{"sheet":"SBVR mapping","index":1,"n_rows":21,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":21,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["RDF or OWL construct","SBVR Construct"]
["Class"]
["sub-class"]
["RDFS sub property"]
["Object property"]
["Object property"]
["Datatype Property"]
["range of datatype property"]
["Union relation"]
["disjointWith"]
["inverseOf"]
["Individual"]
[]
["OWL Annotation Property"]
["OWL Ontology"]
["equivalentClass"]
["sameAs"]
["differentFrom"]
["owlEnumeratedDataRange"]
["rdfsDatatype"]
["owlImports"]

{"sheet":"Metadata - Existing","index":2,"n_rows":16,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":16,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Construct","Requirement","Standard Term to Use","Possible implementation","Current Tag","Spreadsheet column","Current Treatment","Comments"]
["Definition","Definition Origin - link to authority and their reference (2 metaterms?)","skos:definition","OWL Annotation Property with DC term","(no tag)","Definition","UML Notes - the first part before the 'Further Notes:' text string"]
["Further Notes","Notes from review sessions, business justificaiton etc. ","skos:explanatoryNote (does not exist in SKOS)","OWL Annotation Property with DC term","Further Notes:<return>","Business Justification","Notes extraced by macro, from the 'Further Notes:' string to the nect tag. ","Use historical note for the existing ones. Use skos:scopenote for the additional notes about the meaning of the term itself. Use histprical for our review thinking and notes. "]
["synonym","Record any synonyms identified with the term","skos:altLabel","OWL Annotation Property with DC term","synonym","Synonym","Tagged value added to OWL Class, Property types. "]
["Cardinality","Identify cardinality of OWL Object Properties and Datatype Properties","Use restrictions to represent these. ","Use UML Multiplicity as at present; populate defaults","None","Multiples","Uses UML Multiplicity on Range of association, or on Attribute. Note that the default in UML differs from that in OWL. ","First version may require a non ODM compliant feature at this point. We may need to add a new construct for OWL"]
["Archetype","Identify the item as being of a given Archetype; these are ancestral to the term and are recorded in the mid level ontology (Global Terms section of the model) with their necceary facts, these being inherited or specialized for the given term.","None","Define a class called Archetype. Range of the annotation would be the class \"Archetype\". ","Uses UML stereotype","None","Currently rendered as stereotype. Annotation Property would be \"Archetype of\" and each would be a resource in its own right. The property applied to each individual OWL Class or Object property would effectively reference the URI defined for each archetype. "]
["Semantic Provenance"]
["Term Origin","Provenance - axioms/term","dct:source/TermOrigin","Creates sub-terms for Term Origin","Term Origin:","Term Origin","currently in Notes, using text macro to extract","there may be a limitation in the DC term that limits what can be in the Source. We want to refer to some kind of biblioraphic resource OR a web resource OR something else. "]
["Term Originating Organization","Provenance of the term (orgnization)","dct:source/TermOrigin/TermOriginator"]
["Term Original Name","Name of the term in the original source","dct:source/TermOrigin/TermOriginalName"]
["Definition Origin","Provenance - Definition of term","dct:source/DefinitionOrigin","Created sub-terms for Definition Origin","Definition Origin:","Definition Origin","currently in Notes, using text macro to extract","Figure out what kinds of sources we want to refer to. "]
["Modified Definition",null,"dct:source/DefinitionModifiedFrom"]
["Model Management"]
["Consensus","Record industry consensus on term and definition. ","deprecate for OMG Content standard metadata.","Deprecate","Consensus:",null,"Use skos:historyNote"]
["To think about:"]
["Label versus Name","Provide human readable name and also OWL compliant name (no spaces). ","rdfs:label",null,"Currently the name of the element in the UML model is the human readable name. This is a firm requirement in order that diagrams display this in human format. "]

{"sheet":"Metadata - Future","index":3,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Construct","Requirement","Standard Term to Use","Possible implementation","Current Disposition"]
["Mappings to other standards","Two separate requirements - see below"]
["Standard Reference - Term","Authority reference / URI plus term name(s)","dct:source specialize","SKOS. May require broader than / narrower than terms as well as SKOS Match","Only shown where this is the origin of a term. "]
["Standard Reference - Definition","Identify term in another standard that has the same definition or intent. ","dct:source specialize",null,"Shown in Further Notes section; in Derivatives, FpML term definitions are replicated in full and wrapped in single quotes, after the string 'FpML:<return>'"]
["Standard Reference - Axioms","Identify term in another standard that has same logical facts","no","Not sure if we need this","None"]
["Context Metadata"]
["Classification Facet","Identify sets of sub-classes by facet. May also want to associate these facets with specific Business Contexts.","OWL Annotation Property - identify term from an existing standard if available","SBVR / ISO 1087 may have a term for this","Occasional tagged value; diagram boundaries. "]
["Labels"]
["Multilingual labels",null,"skos:altLabel"]
["Context specific labels","Names used in different business areas for same concept","skos:altLabel"]
["Label for OWL name","Explicitly state OWL compliant camelCase names?","skos:altLabel"]

{"sheet":"Metadata - Content Mgt","index":4,"n_rows":9,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":9,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Construct","Requirement","Standard Term to Use","Possible implementation","Current Tag","Spreadsheet column","Current Treatment"]
["These are to be sourced from the OMG content management / Change Control metadata. ",{"$nulls":4},"Definition","UML Notes - the first part before the 'Further Notes:' text string"]
["Version",null,"owl:versionInfo",null,null,"Business Justification","Notes extraced by macro, from the 'Further Notes:' string to the nect tag. "]
["Change Note",null,"skos:changeNote",null,null,"Synonym","Tagged value added to OWL Class, Property types. "]
["Date Created",{"$nulls":4},"Multiples","Uses UML Multiplicity on Range of association, or on Attribute."]
["date modified",{"$nulls":4},"None","Currently rendered as stereotype. Annotation Property would be \"Archetype of\" and each would be a resource in its own right. The property applied to each individual OWL Class or Object property would effectively reference the URI defined for each archetyp"]
[]
[{"$nulls":6},"currently in Notes, using text macro to extract"]
[{"$nulls":6},"currently in Notes, using text macro to extract"]

{"sheet":"Context Metadata","index":5,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":19,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Construct","Requirement","Possible implementation","Comments"]
["Contextual Metadata"]
["Must Have"]
["Classification Facet","Identify sets of sub-classes by facet","OWL Annotation Property - specific type","Tagged value (rarely used; not in metamodel)"]
["Nice to Have"]
["Classification Facet Business Context","Identify the business contexts in which a particular classification facet may be applicable / useful","Requires a tag on a tag. Possible is Classification Facet is an Annotation Property??","This might be best left to implementers. "]
["Mutually exclusive and competely exhaustive (MECE) set","see Classification Facet - may be detail about this","SBVR Segmentation terms"]
["Mutually Exclusive (only) "]
["Set of sub sets of which the sub-types are mutually exclusive but this is not a completely exhaustive set. "]
["Context Metadata","Identify context to enable context-specific model subsets and also diagrams"]
["Business Context","Identify sets of terms which are relevant to a business context; enable extraction of sub-sets of the model content for (a) creation of logical data model content or (b) operational ontologies","Object Properties to \"Context\" terms","Contexts exist as 3rd order Thing. Need to complete links from all Relative Thing types to Context in which they are defined. This will enable extraction of all terms defined specific to that context. "]
[]
["Operational Ontology Extraction","Extract usable sub-sets of OWL for semantic apps"]
["Operational versus non operational relationship facts","Identify which Relationship Facts not to navigate when producing an operational OWL ontology","Record which archetype object properties always navigate to legal or other non-data related classes of Thing, and which ones always navigate to things which will have instance data (individuals).","If we ensure consistency in the hierarchy of Object Properties, this may be feasible and may be sufficient for the extraction of operational ontologies. Have not yet validated that these are consistently applied. "]
["OWL Dialect facets","Not sure if this is feasible"]
[]
["Necessary and Incidental Facts","Distinguish what defines a particular set of sub-sets of a class in a particular classification facet"]
["Necessary Fact","Tag a fact (simple fact or relatonship fact) as being essential to the definition of a given class of Thing.","OWL Annotation Property. Identify if one exists for this. "]
["Incidental Fact","Tag a fact (simple fact or relatonship fact) as NOT being essential to the definition of a given class of Thing.","Possibly this is just the absence of the Necessary Fact."]

{"sheet":"Context metadata notes","index":6,"n_rows":25,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":25,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Construct","Requirement","SVBR","SBVR Comments","Possible implementation","Current Disposition"]
["Extraction Metadata"]
["Classification Facet","Identify sets of sub-classes by facet","Categorization Scheme OR Categorization Type","Categorization scheme does not need to be just at top level\nTwo versions: \n1. general - how to subdivie this category into sub categories\n2. Segmentaton - cutting up the whole extension and each instance in the extension fits into one and only one of the ","OWL Annotation Property - specific type","Tagged value (rarely used; not in metamodel)"]
["Mutually exclusive and competely exhaustive (MECE) set","see Classification Facet - may be detail about this","Segmentation. This is a kind of (a sub category of) categorization Scheme. Its distinguishing characteristics are the two characteristics of CE and ME (column A)","Cat scheme doesn't have to be eithre of these, but a Segmentation, which is a kind of Categorization Scheme, has to be Mutually Exclusive and Completely Exhaustive.","OWL Annotation Property - specific type","None"]
["Mutually Exclusive (only) ",null,"(will look; not clear if this is included). Not a kind of categorization."]
["Set of sub sets of which the sub-types are mutually exclusive but this is not a completely exhaustive set. ",null,"Would need to define a new categorization Scheme in SBVR for this if we need it - it does not exist but can easily be added. "]
["Contextual markers","Identify context to enable context-specific model subsets and also diagrams","There are 4 contexts for disambiguating signifiers. One of these also disambiguates the concept itself. \nLabels: Speech Community is the most general disambiguator. That's the group of people that share the connection between a symbol and a concept (symbo","how this is used: What sub-set of that ontology is relevant to risk, and within that what part is relevanyt to market risk, liquidity risk etc. Effectiely requires an ontology oc \"Area of interest\" or Context. Builds a metamodel relationship between the c","Maybe Object Properties to \"Context\" terms","Contexts exist as 3rd order Thing"]
["Contextual markers",null,"Using context markets from a concept point of view: there is a second relation from a subject field, this being to the context. So there are two use cases for the subject field, one to distinguish labels and one to give the meaning context in which a conc","For next time: there is an algo that is inheren in the definitions of concepts that will help to determine which ones are relevant to a subject area. "]
["Contextual markers",null,"Another construct which works on labels which are disambiugated. Works on a packaging construct (not UML Packages); this is a set of terminological entries, grouped for some purpose. This is called a Vocabulary in SBVR. Distinguishes between where a conce","Discussion: Is the sense of context captured by the vocabulry. For example, we have an ontology with various properties of an individual (for example) but also there are the different roles of the individual, but we are only interested in some of those pr","Roles in FIBO are handled by having \"Second Order\" classes of Thing. "]
["OWL Dialect facets","Extract usable sub-sets of OWL for semantic apps",null,null,"OWL Annotation Property - specific type","None"]
["Necessary Fact","These two will distinguish what defines a particular set of sub-sets of a class in a particular classification facet",null,null,null,"None"]
["Incidental Fact",{"$nulls":4},"None"]
[]
["SBVR notes"]
["Category","is a role name for concept. Category is more specific concept under a higher level \"Concept\". This is also in ISO 1087. "]
["Concept","Would be rendered either as OWL Class or as Property (Object Property or DatatypeProperty). There is a verb concept / concept relation in SBVR. "]
["Category (detail)","They are concepts in the role of category. Category is a role (of a term). A synonym for sub-category is category. "]
[null,"The categorization schemes can be given names in SBVR. "]
["Cat Scheme versus Cat Type:",null,"cat scheme inherits from Thing; Cat Type inherits from Concept."]
["Cat Type",null,"Cat type requires HOL","These are two techniques to accomplish the same thing","So we need to decide which one to use and when. Guideline:> better to use something that does not require HOL unless you intend to use it. So default to using Cat Scheme. This is closer to the idea of a facet. "]
["cat Scheme",null,"Cat scheme can be done with 1st order predicate logic."]
[]
[]
["Other Notes"]
["Annotation properties","Can't define domain or ranges. They do have a URI. Can't do sub-properties. ","These are OWL DL constrained. "]