Template:— identifier (ident)
Context:— UK_Defence		 Date: 2009/04/17 09:34:16
Revision: 1.2
CoverContentsDescriptionBus. perspectiveBus. obj.Model diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssuesin situ

Issue raised against: identifier

GENERAL issues

Open issue Issue: ID-01 by Tim Turner (2008/09/11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The Identifier business object in CBIS has no parameter called "items" which appears in the business template as an input parameter. I understand that this is a parameter from the underlying PLCS template used, but where does this come from in the business object? There is an empty select type in the CBIS model that could provide this, but it is undefined in the current CBIS model (4.0.1). The business object states that it represents the identity of the object that references it (e.g. object -> identifier), but the template is defined so that the Identifier references the object, which is inconsistent and should be corrected. The input parameter should be visible in the business object or object's parameter table.

Open issue Issue: ID-02 by Tim Turner (2008/09/11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The Identifier business object in CBIS has a parameter called "Source" which appears in the business template as an input parameter as "source_organization". However the CBIS type is a list of 3 items that would normally (as elsewhere in CBIS) be a select type object. The CBIS object states that the Source attribute is mandatatory, but the template says that "source_organization" is an Optional attribute. If so, then this parameter should be placed in the characterization section (as this is the bucket for all optional attributes).

Open issue Issue: ID-03 by Tim Turner (2008/09/11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The Identifier business object in CBIS has a parameter called "Source" which appears in the business template as an input parameter as "source_organization". However the CBIS type is a list of 3 items consisting of Organization, Person or Information_System. Hence the template's use of the attribute name "source_organization" is mis-leading and should be reverted back to "source".

Open issue Issue: ID-04 by Tim Turner (2008/09/11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The Identifier business object in CBIS has a parameter called "Type" which appears in the business template as an input parameter as "type"= 'Class'. However there are two classes defined as part of the assigning_identifiers template that this template is based upon and it does not show (fig 2) which is being refered to. The text of the input parameter does clarify this a little, but the diagram should make it clear which class this refers to and also what the default value is..

Open issue Issue: ID-05 by Tim Turner (2008/09/11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The Identifier business object in CBIS has a parameter called "Type" which appears in the business template as an input parameter as "type"= 'Class'. However there are two classes defined as part of the assigning_identifiers template that this template is based upon. In the template path the org_id_class_name='Organization_identification_code' is hard-coded which eliminates the possibility of using an Organization_name as the value of an id. The characterization section should show how this is to be done. Therefore, the template attribute "source_organization" (CBIS Source) would be better named source_id_code, although I doubt this is consistent if the source is a person.

Open issue Issue: ID-06 by Tim Turner (2008/09/11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Fig 6 does not show the optional 'Alias' characterization.

Open issue Issue: ID-07 by Tim Turner (2008/10/02) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Fig 6 does not show the Identifier template that undergoes characterization - it shows the underlying template assigning_identification. Which template is being characterized?

Open issue Issue: ID-08 by Tim Turner (2008/10/02) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Fig 6 is intended to show that one characterization includes the assignment of a digital_file to the identification_assignment entity of Identifier template. Its not clear why UK_Defence.Document and UK_Defence.Associated_Document could not be used (or indeed the PLCS representing_digital_file) instead of using just the entity.

Open issue Issue: ID-09 by Tim Turner (2008/10/07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The text for the "Reference to digital file holding codes" characterization section says "the assigning_code template incorrectly p(l)aces the identiying code in the External_class.name attribute rather than the Identification_assignment.identifer attribute". However, assigning_code does not use Identification_assignment and also does not use the External_class.name attribute to place the code in. It uses a separate instance of Class.name to capture the code used (and uses External_class.name attribute to capture the class to which the code belongs). That aside, the codes should (as I've said before) be separated from the Classes themselves (i.e. not defined as sub-classes) and replacing them with OWL individuals for a particular Class should be fine.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-10-08)
There is a debate whether a code is actually an identifier or a classification (i.e. should we use identification assignments or classifications), and in reality, people probably (incorrectly) use both inter-changeably. When push comes to shove, the Identifier is the only thing that provides a unique identification whereas the codes (by themselves) are not, but I don't think the idea of assigning_ code(s) is meant to infer uniqueness, although they might be better placed in the current RDL (i.e. maybe they belong under a different root than the identification_assignment class).