One ongoing concern in the MARTIF development team has been the
question of normative rigor. As noted above, MARTIF was originally
designed for so-called negotiated interchange, (MARTIF
Level I), where partners examine each other's data before interchange
and make decisions about preconditioning the data before importing
it from the interchange format. This approach reflects the notion
that an interchange format should be able to accommodate all or
almost all-existing database structures without imposing standardization
on specific systems. It places the primary effort for interchange
on the import rather than the export level.
This approach allows for a high degree of freedom and flexibility
in individual applications, which some standardizers find disturbing.
They would rather displace the effort to the other end of the
spectrum, imposing a higher degree of normalization with respect
either to the source database structures or at least to the export
product from these systems. In response to these concerns, researchers
in the US development team have developed and successfully tested
a full prototype for a blind interchange DTD based on the existing
DTD for negotiated interchange. Testing involved developing a
single routine for converting data to and from DANTERM, TERMIUM,
and MultiTerm (Hardman 1996; Melby and Hardman 1996).
This second strategy for interchange would enable exchange partners
who had agreed to conform to certain specific criteria to import
each other's data without prior examination. Such a scenario would
require that exchange partners subscribe to a stricter entry layout
and, in the case of some data categories such as subject field,
gender, etc., to adopt harmonized content options. The
blind interchange option may even impose the requirement
that database operators change their local data structures and
content in order to participate in interchange. Concerns related
to the development of a blind standard have been treated in other
contexts and will not be the focus of this article (Wright 1996;
Hardman 1996).
Experience derived from working with the provisional blind interchange
DTD would indicate that, rather than dealing strictly with a bipartite
system featuring negotiated interchange on the one hand and blind
interchange on the other, it would be more productive to think
of a differentiated approach whereby negotiated interchange represents
one end of the spectrum and fully blind interchange the other
extreme, with at least one other intermediate level featuring
graduated degrees of relative "blindness". This scenario
features three levels of MARTIF:
- Level 1: negotiated MARTIF as defined m the current
standard
- Level 2: partially blind
At this level certain imprecisions in the data category set
would have to be resolved, specifically with regard to granularity,
modeling variance, and the content of permissible instances.
Cooperating work groups adopting MARTIF Level 2 would also specify
the subset of MARTIF data categories used in their environment.
Granularity indicates the degree of fine detail included
in a database for a given data category. For example, in the
case of abbreviated form of term, the current standard
offers two options for reporting information, either to use
the broader category <termNote type='termType'>abbreviated
form</termNote> or to select the more specific permissible
instances, i.e., abbreviation, initialism, acronym,
short form, etc. At this level 2, one of these options
would have to be specified as required.
The current standard also provides for variation in data
modeling practice. For instance, in the case of subject
field, there is the possibility to use either <descrip
type='subjectField'> or <descrip type='subjectFieldlevelx'>
where "x" represents a number from 1 to 9. At Level
2, only the latter, more informative option would be allowed.
In systems where only one subject field level exists, the
notation would be <descrip type='subjectFieldLevel1'>.
Here too, precise content of data categories not defined
in ISO standards 12620 and 12200 would be specified. For instance,
in the case of "grammatical gender", it is not enough
to say that "masculine, feminine, neuter, other"
are the acceptable values, but rather that specific forms
of these values ate required, for example: m, f,
n, o. At this level, no attempt would be made
to normalize subject field, thesaurus, and classification
systems.
- Level 3: totally blind
In addition to agreement on all items listed above, this level
would require the use of specific subject field, thesauri, and
classification systems either at a universal or domain-wide
level. At this level, the only non-specified data fields would
be free-text fields such as terms, definitions, contexts, and
various kinds of notes. Example for universal classification:
Universal Decimal Classification (UDC)
Example for domain-wide thesaurus (medicine): SNOMED or MEDDRA
For standardization at this level, a registration office
should be established in order to; register domain-specific
systems.
Further development of MARTIF exchange levels depends on detailed
experimentation in the area of data interchange and continued
cooperation among those interested in importing and exporting
data. One important principle is that although terminology experts
can offer solutions at the first two levels, only subject-area
specialists will be able to agree on the systems required at Level
3. As evidenced by the example from medicine, the motivation for
accepting a single classification model in any given field will
no doubt be market driven and will reflect the urgency with which
a given sector approaches the data exchange environment.
|