Revision as of 16:50, 29 August 2009

Warning!

This is an old revision. Go to current revision

Last modified date is: 2009-08-29

General information

Name	View Inheritance
Also known as
Author(s)	Benedicto Rodriguez-Castro, Hugh Glaser
Domain (if applicable)
Submitted by	BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser

Problem description	There are ontology domain concepts that are difficult to represent due to the complexities in their definition and the presence of multiple alternative criteria to classify their abstractions.
Solution description	Introduce the following types of classes: Criterion_i: These classes represent each one of the alternative abstraction criteria of the TargetDomainConcept (Criterion1, Criterion2, Criterion_i in the Figure above). The list of classes may not be exhaustive or pairwise disjoint. Ci_Class_x: These classes refine each abstraction criteria class (C1_Class1, ..., C2_Class1, ..., Ci_Class_i in the Figure above). The list of classes may not be exhaustive or pairwise disjoint. CiClass_xCjClass_y, Ci_Class_xClass_y: These classes participate in multiple inheritance relationships combining different refinements from the alternative abstraction criteria classes (C1Class3_C2Class2 and C1_Class1Class2 in the Figure above).
Implementation workflow
Reusable component

Problem example	Matrix representation of Fault in Avizienis et al. [1] used in the ReSIST KB ontology [[Image:Fig_avizienis_fault_5a.jpg
Solution example	Figure above in particular, shows a matrix representation of all types of faults which may affect a system during its life. Implicitly, the figure reveals several alternative criteria for the classification of faults: A first criterion can be derived from the left column of the matrix (listing the basic view points from Figure 2: Development/Operational Faults, Internal/External Faults and so on). This column represents the values of the eight basic viewpoints which lead to the elementary fault classes. A second criterion can be abstracted from the bottom row (listing numbers 1 to 31). This row represents the 31 likely combinations of fault classes out of the 256 possible. A third criterion is implicit at the top row, representing the three major partially overlapping groupings of faults: Development, Physical and Interaction. A fourth criterion can be seen at the bottom row, labeled Examples, containing nine illustrative examples of fault classes.
Consequences

Origin
Known use
Reference
Related ODP	Normalization, Classes As Property Values, Multiple Inheritance

Scenarios about View Inheritance

No scenario is added to this Content OP.

Reviews about View Inheritance

There is no review about this proposal.

Some subquery has no valid condition.

This revision (revision ID 5643) takes in account the reviews: none

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 {{Architectural OP Example Template
 |Problem=Matrix representation of Fault in Avizienis et al. [1] used in the ReSIST KB ontology
-{{Include Image |ImageName=Fig_avizienis_fault_5a.jpg}}
-[1] Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 01(1) (2004) 11--33
+[[Image:Fig_avizienis_fault_5a.jpg]]
 |Solution=Figure above in particular, shows a matrix representation of all types of faults which may affect a system during its life. Implicitly, the figure reveals several alternative criteria for the classification of faults: