1) Use Case reminder
2) Where we are on our road map.
3) Open Action Items
4) JIRA Issues Review - https://jira.edmcouncil.org/projects/FND/issues/FND-48?filter=allopenissues
5) Todays content discussion.
6) For next week.
BT Process question: clarify about going to FIBO 2.0 as the one submission. Is this EDM Council or OMG?
Something has to happen in both places. Suggested that at OMG in Burlingame we do a trial run of what is supposed to happen. Things are not clear.
BT: Does FIBO 2.0 mean 4 items at OMG and the rest at EDM Council, or is it EDMC or what?
MB: FIBO 2.0 is the name of the OMG submission not the name of the EDM Council release.
EDM Council releases the same stuff and more, as spec.edmcouncil.org.fibo with a Quarterly Release label e.g Q317
MB: We also need a librarian function.
As agreed on Friday these items are all to be added to the existing (Release/Production) ontology.
These are additive changes. Ideally the FIBO process would identify when proposed changes are additive and therefore would not present a challenge to existing downstream ontologies.
We need to determine whether to do this work in CCM or in OWL text files. Agreed this will be done in CCM.
This is the issue whereby for a property that has no domain and range, but is a sub property of a property that does have a domain or range, the CCM diagram misleadingly shows the range (in this example) or domain as “Thing”. In the example shown, two properties have an inherited range of Independent Party and of Monetary Amount, which is not reflected in the diagram.
It is hard to imagine how it could show anything different without considerable development effort by NoMagic.
MB shows a workaround for the current CCM tool behavior. This is where the properties that are inherited must be shown on the same diagram, so that modelers don’t mis-allocate domains and ranges to incompatible classes (this would cause unsatisfiable assertions).
All commented that the CCM behavior is not satisfactory on this.
BT notes that for properties that are in a deeper hierarchy, one would need to show all of them, which makes this workaround less tenable.
Resolution: Talk to NoMagic about this problematic rendition of properties.
MB: Next Loans work:
Also determine from which tool to make the location changes for this week's decisions (Line Items).
Resolution: Do that in CCM and export the OWL.
BT: The usual Dev testing is done in two stages: unit test (you run your changes overall), and system test (a system test engineer/librarian) runs your changes over the full 'test' . We're missing a system test function...
Make the Line Items and other Product and Services additions in the Products and SErvices ontology
Talk to NoMagic abut rendition of properties with inherited domans and ranges