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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe, 2006

Submission Paths

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 th Open Forum for Metadata Registry, Kobe,