From Model to Data Transformation One approach Mapping TeleAtlas Data to EuroRoadS

1
From Model to Data Transformation One approach
Mapping TeleAtlas Data to EuroRoadS

• Anders Friis-Christensen, JRC

2
From Model to Data Transformation

• Outline
• Model
• EuroRoadS subset
• XMI/GML
• Visio -gt XMI -gt Rational / EA -gt
• XMI -gt GML schema
• TeleAtlas Road data (shape) -gt GML (schema)
• Model transformation
• EuroRoads GML lt-gt TeleAtlas GML
• XSL
• Data Transformation
• XSLT
• Population of data
• Verification of data

3
Creating EuroRoadS subset

• A subset of the network exchange model
• The network model is a common base for roads
• Including
• Attributes (modeled as abstract classes)
• Geometry (GML data types)
• No topology
• No routing info

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
XMI Generation from Visio
Newline in empty tag ltFoundation.Core.Classifier.f
eaturegtlt/Foundation.Core.Classifier.featuregt not
allowed. Changed 198 places. Newline in empty
tag ltFoundation.Core.AssociationEnd.qualifiergtlt/Fo
undation.Core.AssociationEnd.qualifiergt not
allowed. Changed 192 places. Newline in empty
tag ltFoundation.Core.Namespace.ownedElementgtlt/Foun
dation.Core.Namespace.ownedElementgt not allowed.
Changed 4 places. Undefined references line
5901 ltFoundation.Core.Classifier.associationEndgt
ltFoundation.Core.AssociationEnd
xmi.idref"UID92E0A85B-FFCA-4D3E-AFA3-8A94E5121744
"/gt lt- ltFoundation.Core.AssociationEnd
xmi.idref"UIDFA3023F9-5631-4AF5-85C0-761190195B8C
"/gt lt- lt/Foundation.Core.Classifier.associationEnd
gt deleted line 6054 ltFoundation.Core.Classifier
.associationEndgt ltFoundation.Core.AssociationEnd
xmi.idref"UID958794C3-5D75-4A43-89E3-F0B6E1546E5B
"/gt ltFoundation.Core.AssociationEnd
xmi.idref"UID59BE8B25-EFB3-4BEF-8811-B438964F63A3
"/gt lt- ltFoundation.Core.AssociationEnd
xmi.idref"UID657C99EC-7244-47BD-B84B-BBEEF3A69330
"/gt lt- lt/Foundation.Core.Classifier.associationEnd
gt deleted line 12659 ltFoundation.Core.Generaliza
bleElement.specializationgt ltFoundation.Core.Genera
lization xmi.idref"UID496EBF06-CABE-46F1-87C0-F66
CDEAD17D8"/gt lt- ltFoundation.Core.Generalization
xmi.idref"UID7EA823B3-EB2F-4160-B6C8-F8518860E7F0
"/gt lt/Foundation.Core.GeneralizableElement.special
izationgt deleted

• Use of Microsoft XMIExport.dll
• Invoked by ESRI add-on or by Lars Vikstroms
  application
• Produces non-valid XMI supposedly based on UML
  1.1
• Several errors
• Newline in empty tags, more than 400 errors (only
  in XML spy 2004, error in parser)
• Undefined references (associations ends and
  generalization)
• Must be an error in the model, old references not
  deleted properly by Visio

7
XMI Import (Based on Visio export)

• Rational Rose
• Does not read UML 1.1 XMI
• Possible workarounds??
• Enterprise Architect
• Based on OMG UML 1.1 XMI 1.0 dtd, success on
  import
• However, several errors. E.g.
• Generalizations not imported
• Enumerations not imported
• Association multiplicity not imported

8
XMI Import (Based on Visio export)

• ArgoUML 0.18
• Possible to import XMI
• Errors
• Multiplicities not imported
• Export UML 1.3 XMI 1.0 (without multiplicities)
• Rational Rose
• Import new XMI possible
• No import of enumerations
• Enterprise Architect
• Same as RR

As a curiosity ArgoUML cannot read its own
import if it is saved as a project. The XMI
parsing fails.
9
XMI Issues

• Conclusion
• Microsoft Visio is not interoperable (choose
  another software for UML, if it is foreseen that
  exchange of models is required)
• Various vendors of XML editors/importers have
  errors in their parsers which complicates the
  process of validating XMI
• Tools do not support same versions of XMI
• Tools interpret XMI in different ways
• It is very difficult to validate the content of
  the XMI, i.e. if the model imported is correct
  even though the XMI is validated.
• Report John Herring (communicated by Morten)
• EA problem with RR XMI
• It does not import data types ltltDataTypegtgt (see
  also the example EA diagram that was send to you
• It does not see realization ("inheritance" from
  interfaces and types) in the same way as Rose. It
  transforms those into a type of dependency

10
(No Transcript)
11
Prepare Sub-set Model in RR to support GML

• Creation of GML schemas is done by ShapeChange
  tool (Interactive Instruments)
• Converts XMI 1.0 to GML 2.1.2 and 3.1 (3.1.1?)
• Other XMI than export from RR??
• Experiments from EA (Clemens)
• ShapeChange put different requirements on the UML
  model (and hence the resulting XMI)

12
Prepare Sub-set Model in RR to support GML
13
Prepare Sub-set Model in RR to support GML
14
Prepare Sub-set Model in RR to support GML
15
Prepare Sub-set Model in RR to support GML
16
Prepare Sub-set Model in RR to support GML
Added a validityFrom and validityTo Instead of
TM_Period in order of simplicity and to support
GML 2.1.2
17
Other UGAS requirements

• Additionally following rules needed to be applied
  the model
• Model must be represented in a package
  stereotyped with ltltApplication Schemagtgt
• The XML namespace (a URI) and an abbreviation
  must be present as tagged values

18
Resulting GML
lt?xml version"1.0" encoding"UTF-8"?gt lt!--Output
of ShapeChange has been modified
JRC-AFC--gt ltschema xmlns"http//www.w3.org/2001/X
MLSchema" xmlnscslWorkshop"http//www.jrc.it/ins
pire/cslWorkshop" xmlnsgml"http//www.opengis.ne
t/gml" xmlnssc"http//www.interactive-instrument
s.de/ShapeChange" xmlnsscXML"http//www.isotc211
.org/scXML" xmlnssmXML"http//www.isotc211.org/s
mXML" xmlnsxlink"http//www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
targetNamespace"http//www.jrc.it/inspire/cslWork
shop" elementFormDefault"qualified"
version"0.1"gt ltimport namespace"http//www.op
engis.net/gml" schemaLocation"feature.xsd"/gt
lt!--Added FeatureCollection in order to validate
GML containing multiple feature members.
JRC-AFC--gt ltelement name"FeatureCollection"
type"cslWorkshopFeatureCollectionType"
substitutionGroup"gml_FeatureCollection"/gt
ltcomplexType name"FeatureCollectionType"gt
ltcomplexContentgt ltextension
base"gmlAbstractFeatureCollectionType"/gt
lt/complexContentgt lt/complexTypegt lt!--Type
and element definitions of this package--gt
ltcomplexType name"ER_RoadnetLinkType"
abstract"true"gt ltannotationgt
ltdocumentationgtNote The attribute TM_Period in
the original EuroRoadS model has been replaced by
validityFrom and validityTo for simplicity
reasonslt/documentationgt lt/annotationgt
ltcomplexContentgt ltextension
base"cslWorkshopER_RoadnetElementType"gt
ltsequencegt ltelement
name"validityFrom" type"date" minOccurs"0"/gt
ltelement name"validityTo"
type"date" minOccurs"0"/gt
ltelement name"curve" type"gmlLineStringProperty
Type" minOccurs"0"/gt lt/sequencegt
lt/extensiongt lt/complexContentgt
lt/complexTypegt ltcomplexType name"ER_RoadnetLin
kPropertyType"gt ltsequencegt
ltelement ref"cslWorkshopER_RoadnetLink"
minOccurs"0"/gt lt/sequencegt
ltattributeGroup ref"gmlAssociationAttributeGroup
"/gt lt/complexTypegt ltcomplexType
name"ER_RoadnetLinkPropertyByValueType"gt
ltsequencegt ltelement ref"cslWorkshopER_R
oadnetLink"/gt lt/sequencegt
lt/complexTypegt ltelement name"ER_RoadnetLink"
type"cslWorkshopER_RoadnetLinkType"
abstract"true" substitutionGroup"cslWorkshopER_
RoadnetElement"/gt ltcomplexType
name"ER_IdentifiableObjectType"
abstract"true"gt ltcomplexContentgt
lt!--Added FeatureCollection in order to validate
GML containing multiple feature members.
JRC-AFC--gt ltelement name"FeatureCollection"
type"cslWorkshopFeatureCollectionType"
substitutionGroup"gml_FeatureCollection"/gt ltco
mplexType name"FeatureCollectionType"gt
ltcomplexContentgt ltextension
base"gmlAbstractFeatureCollectionType"/gt
lt/complexContentgt lt/complexTypegt
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Resulting GML

• Because of the many classes in the model, the GML
  is complex
• I did not work further with GML 3.1 schemas
• Complex model
• 3.1 schemas not valid (according several
  parsers), experience in producing 3.1.1?
• Tools support (3.1 and 3.1.1)?
• Any experiences??

22
(No Transcript)
23
Data transformation

• Produce GML from TeleAtlas data
• FME GML
• Create schema option
• No support for 3.1 or 3.1.1??
• TeleAtlas based on GDF
• Should be no problems when mapping attributes
• Except that the attributes are named ID,
  FEATTYP, FT, F_JNCTID, F_JNCTTYP, T_JNCTID,
  T_JNCTTYP, PJ, METERS, FRC, NETCLASS, NETBCLASS,
  NET2CLASS, NAME, NAMELC, SOL, NAMETYP, CHARGE,
  ROUTENUM, RTETYP, RTEDIR, RTEDIRVD, PROCSTAT,
  FOW, SLIPRD, FREEWAY, BACKRD, TOLLRD, RDCOND,
  STUBBLE, PRIVATERD, CONSTATUS, ONEWAY, F_BP,
  T_BP, F_ELEV, T_ELEV, KPH, MINUTES, POSACCUR,
  CARRIAGE, LANES

24
(No Transcript)
25
XSL
FeatureCollection properties (e.g. bbox) are
mapped
26
XSL

• Mapped to FeatureType RoadLink only
• Main elements
• FeatureCollection
• Boundingbox etc
• Id of ER_IdentifiableObject
• FID (should actually have been ID, FID is FME
  generated ID)
• Value of StringAttribute (subclass of
  RoadnetElementAttribute)
• Name
• SpeedLimit of ER_SpeedLimit (subclass of
  RoadLinkAttribute)
• KPH
• GML_Curve
• lineStringProperty
• Level of ER_RoadLink is always selected to
  ER_RoadElement
• FormOfWay of ER_RoadLink
• FOW (lookup table used)
• NationalRoadClass of ER_RoadLink
• FRC (lookup table used)

27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
Result in Gaia
30
(No Transcript)
31
Resulting GML

• Validates to EuroRoadS submodel GML schema
• Complex attribute types not possible to import
  via FME or ArcGIS
• Requires flat structure
• After short! trial, no success in publishing via
  GeoServer WFS

32
Approach(1)

• Automatically (preferably no manual
  intervention)
• Easy set-up
• - Minimum cost
• - Support from vendors/technologies
• - Support a SOA

• Pragmatic solution
• Feasibility of approach
• Does it satisfy requirements
• It is automatic.
• Creating XSL files can be complicated, especially
  if the semantics of attributes to be transformed
  vary too much
• Time-consuming (costly)
• XSLT is a standardized methodology, GML is
  supported by the important software producers
• We shall later see similar approach in a service
  architecture (Snowflake, Finnish Geodetic Ins.
  etc..)
• Would best support
• s

33
Approach

• Requires that the two models that need to be
  mapped do not differentiate too much
• Attribute types, feature types, etc.
• No (immediate) generalization mechanisms
• i.e., the approach is scale dependent
• Aggregation (attributes, features) is complicated
  
• Requires in-depth knowledge of both models
• From domain to low level spatio-temporal aspects
  of models
• How to test that a mapping occurs error free
• Validation of data?
• Constraints?
• Other possibilities
• Materialized views and stored procedures for
  mapping
• Create DB schema based on complex UML or GML
  schemas?

34
(No Transcript)