ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34N0858
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
Information Technology --
Document Description and Processing Languages
|TITLE:||Oslo 2007-03 Minutes - Topic Maps - Graphical notation 13250-7|
|SOURCE:||Mr. Lars Marius Garshol; Prof. Jaeho Lee|
|PROJECT:||WD 13250-7: Information technology - Topic Maps - Graphical notation|
|PROJECT EDITOR:||Prof. Jaeho Lee; Mr. Graham Moore|
|DISTRIBUTION:||SC34 and Liaisons|
Dr. James David Mason
(ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat - Standards Council of Canada)
Crane Softwrights Ltd.
Kars, ON K0A-2E0 CANADA
Telephone: +1 613 489-0999
Facsimile: +1 613 489-0995
Network: [email protected]
GTM Minutes from WG 3 Meeting in Oslo, 2007
For ease of reference, these minutes contain the presentation made by the GTM editors, Lars Marius Garshol and Professor Jaeho Lee, as well as the comments and decisions made during the meeting. Comments and decisions from the meeting are shown in italic text.
- GTM should be usable for communicating the contents of a topic map to students and readers of technical papers. This means that GTM should effectively be able to express the same information as the TMDM, but in a visual form. This is the purpose served by GTM level 0.
- example: Tosca was composed by Puccini
- example: every opera must have at least one composer
2. General Requirements
- GTM must support both of the purposes described above.
- ie. both instances and constraints
- a modelling tool with GTM support,
- a general vector drawing tool, or
- simply manually on a whiteboard or blackboard.
Comments on Requirements
- GTM needs to support breaking models up into several diagrams. It must be possible to see how these diagrams are connected into a single model.
- The editors need to make requirements 2:8 and 2:9 more precise so people know what it means.
- 2:9: something about using shapes that allow many connection points
- 2:11 and 2:13
- make extensibility the main point
- how is secondary
- There should be some way to annotate the diagrams with textual extra information.
- The visual vocabulary used in GTM should be systematically designed.
- The standard needs to make the systematic approach taken explicit.
- Although we are going to have a consistent visual vocabulary, visual or textual variation within that visual vocabulary is not necessarily forbidden
- should such variation come to not be forbidden, it must be clear what the limits for legitimate variation are
- The standard will not define an interchange format for GTM diagrams and models similar to XMI for UML. (Except in so far as this is supported by CTM and XTM.)
- Features such as filtering, zooming, and layering will not be defined by GTM, although tools may well provide these functions, so long as the resulting models conform to GTM.
- No data model for the visual shapes will be defined.
2. General non-requirements
3. GTM level 0
- GTM level 0 must be able to represent all item types and properties in the TMDM.
- GTM level 0 may also define shapes for representing the type-instance and supertype-subtype association types defined by TMDM.
- There must be a precise definition of how the shapes in GTM level 0 map to constructs in the TMDM.
3. GTM level 0 non-requirements
- GTM level 0 only represents TMDM, and no attempt will be made to represent any aspects of CTM and XTM beyond those present in TMDM.
3. GTM level 0
- Note that since TMCL constraints have a TMDM representation it is possible to represent these constraints in GTM level 0. This is considered to be useful for communicating the TMDM representation of TMCL constraints, but not to be suitable for communicating an actual set of constraints to customers etc as described under "Purpose" above. This is why a level 1 is proposed in addition to level 0.
4. GTM level 1
- GTM level 1 must be able to express everything that TMCL Schema can express. That is, it must be possible to generate a TMCL Schema from a GTM level 1 model.
- GTM level 1 must be conceptually similar to existing modelling formalisms such as UML, ORM, and ER.
- GTM level 1 must allow a representation of TMCL constraints that is more compact than the representation of the TMDM form of these constraints in GTM level 0.
- There must be a precise definition of how the shapes in GTM level 1 map to constraints in TMCL.
- Editors to produce new version of requirements document
- Editors to
- collect existing proposals
- make sure they are all available online
- maintain a list of links to the proposals
- Editors to propose GTM draft by July 2 (in time for Extreme)