CIM Issues #6355: [GMDM #20] Clarification of extension association expression in rdfs - WG13 Issues - UCAIug Issue Tracking System

CIM Issues #6355

[GMDM #20] Clarification of extension association expression in rdfs

Added by Pat Brown over 1 year ago. Updated 3 months ago.

Status:

Review

Priority:

Normal

Author/Contact Info:

Pat Brown pat@cimpledata.com

Base Release:

Solution to be Applied To:

Solution Version:

Solution Applied By:

Completion Date:

CIM Keywords:

Breaking Change:

Breaking Change Description:

CIM Impacted Groups:

WG13

Requestor:

Pat Brown

Standard(s):

61970-501?

Version:

Clause:

Sub-Clause:

Paragraph:

Table:

Originally Closed in Version:

Origination Date:

Origination ID:

Originally Assigned To:

Description

Associations are described by 2 resources (one representing each direction of the association). The general convention for the construction of the identifiers for the 2 association resources is:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="class1 name.role name on class2 end">
and
<rdf:Description rdf:about="class2 name.role name on class1 end">

Should the association be identified in the following way if the association is an extension:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="extension namespace#class1 name.role name on class2 end">
.
<cims:stereotype>extension namespace prefix</cims:stereotype>
.
</rdf:Description>
and
<rdf:Description rdf:about="extension namespace#class2 name.role name on class1 end">
.
<cims:stereotype>extension namespace prefix</cims:stereotype>
.
</rdf:Description>

Meaning that the extension namespace on the rdf:about is assumed to apply to the association as a whole and not the first listed class? Or another way to put it, you can't tell by looking at the rdfs description of an extension association what the namespace of the source object is. You only know the namespace of the association itself.

Files

GMDM 20 - Proper use of rdfs in profiles to express extensions that are associations.docx

14.1 KB

Pat Brown, 05/24/2023 12:37 PM

Decision

Oslo, 14 June 2023
1) Fix issue in Cimcontextor so that it is possible to create association between 2 CIM classes as inherited association
2) Review the profiling guidelines so that it is required that extension between 2 CIM classes is done by creating an association between 2 extended classes inheriting from the 2 CIM classes

3) In the profiling guideline add a rule to require that extended classes shoudl have the same name but different stereotype indicationg the namespace.

19-Sep-2024 Joint TF Hybrid Meeting - Minneapolis:
AI: Chavdar to review existing CIM Modelling Guidelines document to determine if an existing rule is to be changed (or if new rule is needed). An issue in GitHub should be created for whatever changes are needed. (see: https://cim-mg.ucaiug.io/latest/section6-cim-uml-extension-rules-and-recommendations/#association-extension-rules)