1. 9 th Open Forum on Metadata Registries Harmonization of Terminology, Ontology and Metadata 20th – 22nd March, 2006, Kobe Japan. Day: 3 Slot No. P20 Name:Ian Cornwell Organization: Mott MacDonald Metadata Registry for Intelligent Transport Systems

2. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Intelligent Transport Systems

3. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Intelligent Transport Systems

4. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Intelligent Transport Systems

5. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Intelligent Transport Systems

6. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 A goal of Intelligent Transport Systems:  seamless door-to-door services which needs:  integration of open systems from different organisations Without a registry this goal will be achieved later and at greater cost, as various organisations slowly find out how to integrate fragments of the overall service. Registry is important to I.T.S.

7. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Operational In discussion Research contribution Highways Agency ITS Metadata Registry ITS Community metadata registry community English Highways Agency UK Travel Information Community

8. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 ISO 14817 Process Structure Registry Structure UML XML Schema ITS Metadata Registry Foundation Express in UML Convert to UML (via MOF- based tool) & include

9. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006

10. Submission Paths

11. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006  14 major models with over 15,000 registered items  10 different submitting organisations  3 out of 14 submissions as XML Schema  7 out of 14 as XMI from different UML tools  XMI versions can vary but can bridge via XSL Registry Population

12. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Registry Top Level

13. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Card/DraftRecorded QualifiedPreferred Registry Process  Mapped ISO 14817 roles to existing bodies  All status levels found to be useful  Process drove up the quality of submissions  Deeper refinement needed to achieve harmonisation

14. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Bottom up Agree and build on common data types Top down ITS Architecture, indexing of subject matter & function Middle Out Core Components Harmonisation Tactics Dealing with multiple overlapping submissions

15. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Harmonisation of overlapping concepts  Rely on submitters changing submissions?  Make attributes the unit of re-use?  Tag common attributes across classes?  One union class with options + context?  Core Components!

16. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Core Component Business Information Entity Specific business context Independent of business context UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components

17. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Core Components

18. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Relate classes, attributes, associations

19. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Derive Core Components from specific models  Our “ Core Components ” are actually superset of concepts in specific models, in a common subject matter area.  Process as objective as possible to avoid Core Components being yet another competing model. –Don ’ t add or “ fix ” except when justified by existing models.

20. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Variety across systems  Not strictly compliant with UN/CEFACT Core Components  But using the basic idea, registry UML representation copes

21. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Build Conceptual Schema first … On the way to ontology In one case we started with taxonomy

22. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 … add attribute detail …

23. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 … all built by considering mappings from existing models

24. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Value of Core Components  Makes the similarities & differences explicit  Mappings process distinguishes justified design from flawed design  Generates objective feedback to submitters  Use understanding when building translators  Use to identify candidates for recommendations (or “ preferred ” status), awarded in a specific business context.  All the thinking exposed to future designers

25. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 Conclusions on Results  UML/XMI has given a successful technical foundation –Keeping costs low through alignment with standard tools –Only 3 out of 14 submissions as XML Schema  Harmonisation in a mature domain needs something more than published registry processes –Core Components analysis evolving as a technique to fill this gap

26. 9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006 www.itsregistry.org.uk