Dear Bernhard,
Here is probably the misunderstanding. The text does not talk about
checking if a schema is compatible, nor how the system exports data. It is only
the effect on the data we look at. No need for a vendor to disclose his
schema. Semantics can be anywere hidden in code.
Print outs of filled-in screen forms are enough to represent data in
a collection management system. These should be compared against CRM instances
the system can produce, for instance in OWL or RDF as export.
The compatibility text does not mention texts or schema, nor does it intend to.
Is any phrase ambiguous in this sense?
Best,
Martin
Bernhard Schiemann wrote:
Dear Martin, Dear all,
I rather meant with "test data" the real data records, instances of the
schema of a local system, rich enough to cover the relevant cases,
to demonstrate how their export results in CRM instances,
and/or CRM instances provided as test vectors, to demonstrate how their
input results in reasonable local data.
If so, the real data records have a structure (schema of the local
system). If one would provide or wants to provide correct export CRM
instances a formal language is needed (for RDBMS, it could be SQL, ...).
Or other formal languages based on logics.
If one wants to proof compatibility of his/her text with the CRM ISO
text, it might be a viable way to formulate this text in the controlled
vocabulary of the CRM.
What did you have in mind? How would you show, that an RDBMS exports
correctly its data into CRM instances?
I would transform the CRM into a formal language (e.g. OWL-DL) and then
export the instances of the RDBMS in terms of the CRM model. Then it is
possible to test compatibility of the RDBMS instances against the CRM
OWL-DL "schema".
If something is unclear, please ask!
Best,
Bernhard
Best,
Martin
Bernhard Schiemann wrote:
martin wrote:
Dear All,
The current, well received text about CRM compatibility we are
preparing to propose as ISO
amendment, contains the following last phrase, which caused comments
on what the certification procedure will be:
A) The provider should be able to demonstrate the claim with suitable
test data. A third party should be able to verify the claim with
suitable test data.
One alternative is this:
B)
The provider should be able to demonstrate the claim with suitable
test data and the grant of a certificate by a certification authority
(CA). A trusted third party recognised as a CA in this practice
area, should be able to verify the credentials of the provider applying
for such certificate and thus, of its claim with suitable test
data,before issuing the certificate so that the users can trust the
information in the CA certificates.
In any case, the provider should be able to demonstrate its claim
according to certain procedures included in any applicable certificate
practice related statement and must also comply with any applicable
certification policies of the respective CA.
Second alternative:
C)
The provider should be able to demonstrate the claim with suitable
test data. The provider should be able to demonstrate its claim
according to certain procedures included in any applicable
certificate practice related statement.
The provider should either make evidence of these procedures publicly
available, so that any third party should be able to verify the claim
with suitable test data, or acquire a certificate by a certification
authority (CA). A trusted third party recognised as a CA in this
practice area, should be able to verify the credentials of the
provider applying for such certificate and thus, of its claim with
suitable test data, before issuing the certificate so that the users
can trust the information in the CA certificates.
May I add an alternative?: (It is a variant of C)
D)
The provider is able to demonstrate the claim with suitable test data.
The test data consist either of a controlled vocabulary as a subset of
the text specification ISO 21127:2006 (:2008/9) or in a formal language
. A set of test data is provided by the CRM SIG.
The provider should either make evidence of these procedures publicly
available, so that any third party is able to verify the claim
with suitable test data, or acquire a certificate by a CRM certification
authority (CA). A trusted third party recognized as a CRM CA in this
practice area, is able to verify the credentials of the provider
applying for a CRM certificate and thus, of its claim with suitable
test data, before issuing the CRM certificate so that users can trust
the information in the CA CRM certificates. Any company or group who
wishes to be recognized as CRM CA request this status at the CRM SIG.
Best
Bernhard
Please vote on these alternatives until Thursday morning. Reply
either to crm-sig or to [email protected], in case you would not
like your vote to become public.
Best,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
