Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Information Modeling definitions #55

Open
davaya opened this issue Nov 5, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Information Modeling definitions #55

davaya opened this issue Nov 5, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@davaya
Copy link
Contributor

davaya commented Nov 5, 2024

Issue #28 proposes creation of a "definitions" document. Issue #30 proposed a definition of "Document" from a user perspective, but veered into unproductive tangent discussions and is closed by agreement at the Nov 5 meeting. The original question remains open for a new issue.


The OSIM goals document contains a list of terms used in the technical context of information modeling, slightly updated in the JADN IM specification:

Logical Type: An abstract DataType that defines the meaning and essential content of a discrete data item used in computing independently of how it is represented for processing, communication or storage.

Logical Value (information value): An instance of a logical type used for processing and comparison, specified by result independently of programming languages and techniques.

Data Value (artifact, document, lexical value, literal value, message): A fixed instance of a logical type used for transmission or storage, consisting of a sequence of octets (bytes) or characters in an external data format. Or equivalently, the same sequence as defined by a data model.

It's not clear that technical terms belong in the Issue 28 list of definitions. But a "document", however that term is defined from a user perspective, is: 1) an immutable artifact, and 2) an example of an information model's "data value".

Question: Are information modeling technical terms out of scope for issue #28? I propose that they be kept separate - different documents for different audiences.

@sparrell
Copy link
Contributor

sparrell commented Nov 6, 2024

For now, we could make the definition of each term it's own issue with it's own PR.
The question remains of what the PR should be against. We could start a definitions document. Or we could make each definition an FAQ (as we have done with definition of SBOM). Starting with FAQ is easier. It will eventually get burdensome, but once we have enough, we could switch to a definitions document (or a definitions section to a Information Model document).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants