{{{
#!comment
NB! Make sure that you follow the guidelines: http://trac.posccaesar.org/wiki/IdsAdiEditing
}}}

[[TracNav(TracNav/RdsWip)]]
[[Image(wiki:IdsAdiBranding:Logo-128x128.gif)]]
= POSC-Caesar FIATECH IDS-ADI Projects =
== Intelligent Data Sets Accelerating Deployment of ISO15926 ==
== ''Realizing Open Information Interoperability'' ==

----

= Template Methodologies =

N-ary relations, that is "templates" in ISO 15926 parlance, can be
defined using a wide variety of different approaches.  When such an approach takes the form of a systemic process, we call it a "methodology".

== The Purpose of a Methodology ==

The likelihood of two different templates working well together in any given scenario is much higher for those templates that have been generated using the same methodology.

In general this is the very purpose of a methodology: to create a set of templates that work well together to solve some interoperability problem.

== Retain the Record of Methodology ==

Because multiple methodologies can be used to create definitions in the same modeling system, it is crucial to record the methodology that created a definition, and any other methodologies it has been proven for.

This allows the selection of a cogent, orthogonal set of definitions to solve a specific interoperability problem using a given modeling system.
That is to say, the intersection of '''modeling system''' ''and''  '''methodology''' together select the working set of definitions.

== Coarse-to-Fine Approach ==

The [wiki:RdsWipWorldView/CoarseToFine Coarse-to-Fine] approach takes information and models it in its extant form (as it is exposed from language, data or usage).  It then breaks down those "coarse" relations into finer relations to the depth required to address a specific problem set.

== Fine-to-Coarse Approach ==

The [wiki:RdsWipWorldView/FineToCoarse Fine-To-Coarse] approach seeks to model information from a set of founding principles.  These principles determine a starting set of finely-grained relations from which successively coarser and coarser sets of relations are built, until (perhaps) relations that are generally useful for solving specific problem sets can be reached.

== The Reach of a Methodology ==

Coarse-to-fine approaches have a tendency to be more neutral to a modeling system - the shallower the coarse-to-fine approach (that is to say, the coarser the concepts) the more neutral it tends to be.  This allows very shallow coarse-to-fine methodologies to be applied across different systems.

Fine-to-coarse approaches are (by definition) founded on a specific modeling system, and so these methodologies are generally confined to a single modeling system.

----
@todo notes to incorporate/explore included as comments
{{{
#!comment

The distinction I wanted to make is that from my point of view,
templates as a term in 15926 need to include at least two extremes,
and everything in else between them.

I see these two extremes as being templates produced with a top-down
process, where you start essentially with the template and then
figure out what it really means by breaking it down into smaller and
smaller relationships; and then templates produced with a bottom-up
process, where you start with binary relationships and work your way
up, generating coarser and coarser templates.

Very simplistically, when you take a linguistic approach to
defining templates, you are using a top-down approach; when
you take a usage approach to defining templates (eg. from
existing spreadsheets, datasheets), you are also using a
top-down approach; but when you use a formal logical approach
to defining templates, you are using a bottom-up approach.

It is my *belief* that linguistic templates and usage templates
are the fastest to develop, but with the caveat that when working
in a collaborative, distributed effort to produce them, they are
unlikely to "fit" well with eachother, instead, resulting in
little "cultures" of related, relatively well-fitting templates
that do not address the needs of disciplines or environments
that they were not generated from - ie. poor fit to other "cultures".

It is also my *belief* that bottom-up approaches to templates
are slower to develop and more costly to map to, but they result
in models that retain a higher level of precision across
disciplines and they can be produced as a cohesive set in a
distributed, collaborative effort (because you have to build
from smaller, existing, published blocks).  You can still get
cultures forming, but at least they will have at their root
a common basis.
}}}
----