Dear Martin, > 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? For my personal understanding: yes. Because it is nothing said about "data" (could be data records of a DB, Triples, Text, ...). But if anyone else is ok with these definitions, please proceed.
Best Bernhard > > 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 > > -- ************************************************************* Bernhard Schiemann, Dipl. Ing. Artificial Intelligence Division Department of Computer Science University of Erlangen-Nuremberg Haberstr. 2, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany Tel.: +49-9131-85-28984 Fax : +49-9131-85-28986 Email: [email protected] http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/inf8/en/schiemann.html To verify my keys, please use gpg keyserver: pgp.mit.edu *************************************************************
<<attachment: schiemann.vcf>>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
