DOCSLIB.ORG

NIEM Model Package Description Specification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NIEM Model Package Description Specification August 8, 2011 MODEL PACKAGE DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION VERSION 1.0 URI: http://reference.niem.gov/niem/specification/model-package-description/1.0/ NIEM Model Package Description (MPD) Specification ii NIEM Model Package Description (MPD) Specification Change History A = Add. Reference: All, Page, No. Date M = Mod. Change Description Table, Figure, Paragraph Revised By D = Del. 1.0 8/8/2011 All A NTAC Initial release iii NIEM Model Package Description (MPD) Specification Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Audience ......................................................................................................................... 4 2 Concepts and Terminology ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Key Words for Requirement Levels ............................................................................... 4 2.2 Character Case Sensitivity .............................................................................................. 4 2.3 Artifacts .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Schema-Namespace Correspondence in NIEM .............................................................. 5 2.5 Harmonization ................................................................................................................ 5 2.6 Validation ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.7 Reference Schema ........................................................................................................... 6 2.8 Coherence of Schema Sets .............................................................................................. 7 2.9 MPD Types ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.9.1 NIEM Release ..................................................................................................... 9 2.9.2 Domain Update ................................................................................................. 10 2.9.3 Core Update ....................................................................................................... 11 2.9.4 Information Exchange Package Documentation (IEPD)................................... 11 2.9.5 Enterprise Information Exchange Model (EIEM) ............................................. 12 2.10 Similarities and Differences of MPD Classes ............................................................... 15 3 MPD XML Schema Artifacts ................................................................................................. 16 3.1 Reference Schemas ....................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Subset Schemas ............................................................................................................. 17 3.2.1 Basic Subset Concepts ...................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 Subset Namespaces ........................................................................................... 19 3.2.3 Omitting Schemas in Subsets ............................................................................ 19 3.2.4 Multiple Subsets in a Single IEPD or EIEM ..................................................... 20 3.3 Extension Schemas ....................................................................................................... 21 3.4 Exchange Schemas ....................................................................................................... 21 3.5 Constraint Schemas ....................................................................................................... 23 3.6 Classes of IEMs vs. Classes of Schemas ...................................................................... 25 3.7 Sample XML Instances ................................................................................................. 25 4 MPD Documentation Artifacts ............................................................................................... 26 4.1 Catalog .......................................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Metadata Concepts ........................................................................................................ 27 4.2.1 Version Numbering Scheme ............................................................................. 27 4.2.2 URI Scheme for MPDs ..................................................................................... 29 4.2.3 URI Scheme for MPD Artifacts ........................................................................ 30 4.2.3.1 Compact URIs (CURIEs) ...................................................................... 32 4.2.3.2 MPD Artifact URIs Are Not NIEM Namespaces ................................. 32 4.2.4 Artifact Vocabularies: Nature and Purpose ...................................................... 33 4.2.5 MPD Artifact Lineage ....................................................................................... 35 iv NIEM Model Package Description (MPD) Specification 4.3 Change Log ................................................................................................................... 35 4.3.1 NIEM Releases, Core Updates, and Domain Updates ...................................... 35 4.3.2 IEPDs and EIEMs ............................................................................................. 36 4.4 Master Document .......................................................................................................... 37 4.4.1 Master Document Content ................................................................................ 38 5 Optional MPD Artifacts .......................................................................................................... 40 6 Directory Organization, Packaging, Other Criteria ................................................................ 41 6.1 MPD File Name Syntax ................................................................................................ 42 6.2 Artifact Links to Other Resources ................................................................................ 43 6.3 Duplication of Artifacts ................................................................................................ 45 6.4 Non-normative Guidance for Directories ..................................................................... 45 Appendix A: MPD Catalog Schema ........................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Catalog Data Dictionary ........................................................................................ B-1 Appendix C: Sample MPD Catalog Instance .............................................................................. C-1 Appendix D: Sample XSLT for a Catalog Index ........................................................................ D-1 Appendix E: Browser Display of Catalog (XSLT 1.0) ................................................................ E-1 Appendix F: MPD Artifacts ......................................................................................................... F-1 Appendix G: MPD Lexicon (Nature and Purpose) ..................................................................... G-1 Appendix H: Rule Summary ....................................................................................................... H-1 Appendix I: Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................... I-1 Appendix J: Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................... J-1 Appendix K: References ............................................................................................................. K-1 Figures Figure 2-1. Incoherent schema set – not closed. ............................................................................ 7 Figure 2-2. Incoherent schema set – incompatible data components. ........................................... 8 Figure 2-3. Examples of NIEM numbered releases ..................................................................... 10 Figure 2-4. BIECs, EIEM, and a small family of IEPDs ............................................................. 14 Figure 4-1. Example versioning system. ...................................................................................... 28 Figure 4-2. An example of IEPD representation. ........................................................................ 34 Figure 6-1. IEPD sample directory structure ............................................................................... 47 Tables Table 2-1. Comparison of MPD classes ................................................................................ 16 Table 3-1. IEM classes vs. schema
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantics Developer's Guide
    MarkLogic Server Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide 2 MarkLogic 10 May, 2019 Last Revised: 10.0-8, October, 2021 Copyright © 2021 MarkLogic Corporation. All rights reserved. MarkLogic Server MarkLogic 10—May, 2019 Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide—Page 2 MarkLogic Server Table of Contents Table of Contents Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide 1.0 Introduction to Semantic Graphs in MarkLogic ..........................................11 1.1 Terminology ..........................................................................................................12 1.2 Linked Open Data .................................................................................................13 1.3 RDF Implementation in MarkLogic .....................................................................14 1.3.1 Using RDF in MarkLogic .........................................................................15 1.3.1.1 Storing RDF Triples in MarkLogic ...........................................17 1.3.1.2 Querying Triples .......................................................................18 1.3.2 RDF Data Model .......................................................................................20 1.3.3 Blank Node Identifiers ..............................................................................21 1.3.4 RDF Datatypes ..........................................................................................21 1.3.5 IRIs and Prefixes .......................................................................................22 1.3.5.1 IRIs ............................................................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • XSAMS: XML Schema for Atomic, Molecular and Solid Data
    XSAMS: XML Schema for Atomic, Molecular and Solid Data Version 0.1.1 Draft Document, January 14, 2011 This version: http://www-amdis.iaea.org/xsams/docu/v0.1.1.pdf Latest version: http://www-amdis.iaea.org/xsams/docu/ Previous versions: http://www-amdis.iaea.org/xsams/docu/v0.1.pdf Editors: M.L. Dubernet, D. Humbert, Yu. Ralchenko Authors: M.L. Dubernet, D. Humbert, Yu. Ralchenko, E. Roueff, D.R. Schultz, H.-K. Chung, B.J. Braams Contributors: N. Moreau, P. Loboda, S. Gagarin, R.E.H. Clark, M. Doronin, T. Marquart Abstract This document presents a proposal for an XML schema aimed at describing Atomic, Molec- ular and Particle Surface Interaction Data in distributed databases around the world. This general XML schema is a collaborative project between International Atomic Energy Agency (Austria), National Institute of Standards and Technology (USA), Universit´ePierre et Marie Curie (France), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA) and Paris Observatory (France). Status of this document It is a draft document and it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use this document as reference materials or to cite them as other than “work in progress”. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge all colleagues and institutes, atomic and molecular database experts and physicists who have collaborated through different discussions to the building up of the concepts described in this document. Change Log Version 0.1: June 2009 Version 0.1.1: November 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Motivation..................................... 11 1.2 Limitations..................................... 12 2 XSAMS structure, types and attributes 13 2.1 Atomic, Molecular and Particle Surface Interaction Data XML Schema Structure 13 2.2 Attributes ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing
    RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing A collection of attributes and processing rules for extending XHTML to support RDF W3C Recommendation 14 October 2008 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014 Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904 Diff from previous version: rdfa-syntax-diff.html Editors: Ben Adida, Creative Commons [email protected] Mark Birbeck, webBackplane [email protected] Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. [email protected] Steven Pemberton, CWI Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PostScript version, PDF version, ZIP archive, and Gzip’d TAR archive. The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available. Copyright © 2007-2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract The current Web is primarily made up of an enormous number of documents that have been created using HTML. These documents contain significant amounts of structured data, which is largely unavailable to tools and applications. When publishers can express this data more completely, and when tools can read it, a new world of user functionality becomes available, letting users transfer structured data between applications and web sites, and allowing browsing applications to improve the user experience: an event on a web page can be directly imported - 1 - How to Read this Document RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing into a user’s desktop calendar; a license on a document can be detected so that users can be informed of their rights automatically; a photo’s creator, camera setting information, resolution, location and topic can be published as easily as the original photo itself, enabling structured search and sharing.
    [Show full text]
  • Rdf Repository Replacing Relational Database
    RDF REPOSITORY REPLACING RELATIONAL DATABASE 1B.Srinivasa Rao, 2Dr.G.Appa Rao 1,2Department of CSE, GITAM University Email:[email protected],[email protected] Abstract-- This study is to propose a flexible enable it. One such technology is RDF (Resource information storage mechanism based on the Description Framework)[2]. RDF is a directed, principles of Semantic Web that enables labelled graph for representing information in the information to be searched rather than queried. Web. This can be perceived as a repository In this study, a prototype is developed where without any predefined structure the focus is on the information rather than the The information stored in the traditional structure. Here information is stored in a RDBMS’s requires structure to be defined structure that is constructed on the fly. Entities upfront. On the contrary, information could be in the system are connected and form a graph, very complex to structure upfront despite the similar to the web of data in the Internet. This tremendous potential offered by the existing data is persisted in a peculiar way to optimize database systems. In the ever changing world, querying on this graph of data. All information another important characteristic of information relating to a subject is persisted closely so that in a system that impacts its structure is the reqeusting any information of a subject could be modification/enhancement to the system. This is handled in one call. Also, the information is a big concern with many software systems that maintained in triples so that the entire exist today and there is no tidy approach to deal relationship from subject to object via the with the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Robust Web Content Extraction Marek Kowalkiewicz Maria E
    Robust Web Content Extraction Marek Kowalkiewicz Maria E. Orlowska Tomasz Kaczmarek Witold Abramowicz Department of Management Department of Information Department of Management Department of Management Information Systems Technology and Electrical Information Systems Information Systems The Poznan University of Engineering The Poznan University of The Poznan University of Economics The University of Economics Economics Al. Niepodleglosci 10 Queensland Al. Niepodleglosci 10 Al. Niepodleglosci 10 60-967 Poznan, Poland Brisbane, St. Lucia 60-967 Poznan, Poland 60-967 Poznan, Poland +48 (61) 8543631 QLD 4072, Australia +48 (61) 8543631 +48 (61) 8543381 +61 (7) 33652989 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT There is a number of technologies to extract information from We present an empirical evaluation and comparison of two webpages. For a state of the art analysis, see previously content extraction methods in HTML: absolute XPath expressions mentioned paper [2] and an extensive study by Laender et al. [3]. and relative XPath expressions. We argue that the relative XPath Robustness of content extraction methods, with a focus on XPath, expressions, although not widely used, should be used in has been presented in a work by Abe and Hori [1]. The authors preference to absolute XPath expressions in extracting content proposed four content anchoring approaches and tested them on from human-created Web documents. Evaluation of robustness documents from four Web sites. The samples used in theory study covers four thousand queries executed on several hundred were too small to be statistically valid. However the authors make webpages. We show that in referencing parts of real world a significant step towards establishing an understanding of the dynamic HTML documents, relative XPath expressions are on applicability of content extraction methods in real world Web average significantly more robust than absolute XPath ones.
    [Show full text]
  • CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0
    CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0 A syntax for expressing Compact URIs W3C Working Draft 26 November 2007 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126 Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/curie Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20070307 Diff from previous version: curie-diff.html Editors: Mark Birbeck, x-port.net Ltd. Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PostScript version, PDF version. The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available. Copyright © 2007 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract The aim of this document is to outline a syntax for expressing URIs in a generic, abbreviated syntax. While it has been produced in conjunction with the HTML Working Group, it is not specifically targeted at use by XHTML Family Markup Languages. Note that the target audience for this document is Language designers, not the users of those Languages. Status of this Document This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/. - 1 - Table of Contents CURIE Syntax 1.0 This document is an updated working draft based upon comments received since the last draft.
    [Show full text]
  • CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0
    CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0 A syntax for expressing Compact URIs W3C Working Group Note 16 December 2010 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-curie-20101216 Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/curie Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-curie-20090116 Diff from previous version: curie-diff.html Editors: Mark Birbeck, Sidewinder Labs [email protected] Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PostScript version, PDF version. Copyright © 2007-2010 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract This document defines a generic, abbreviated syntax for expressing URIs. This syntax is intended to be used as a common element by language designers. Target languages include, but are not limited to, XML languages. The intended audience for this document is Language designers, not the users of those Languages. Status of this Document This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/. - 1 - Table of Contents CURIE Syntax 1.0 This document is a Working Group Note. The XHTML2 Working Group's charter expired before it could complete work on this document. It is possible that the work will be continued by another group in the future. This version is based upon comments received during the Candidate Recommendation period, upon work done in the definition of [XHTML2 [p.17] ], and upon work done by the RDF-in-HTML Task Force, a joint task force of the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group and XHTML 2 Working Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2103.03851V2 [Cs.CR] 26 Apr 2021
    SoK: Cryptojacking Malware Ege Tekiner∗, Abbas Acar∗, A. Selcuk Uluagac∗, Engin Kirday, and Ali Aydin Selcukz ∗Florida International University, Email:fetekiner, aacar001, suluagacg@fiu.edu yNortheastern University, Email: [email protected] zTOBB University of Economics and Technology, Email: [email protected] Abstract—Emerging blockchain and cryptocurrency-based According to a recent Kaspersky report [2], 19% of technologies are redefining the way we conduct business the world’s population have bought some cryptocurrency in cyberspace. Today, a myriad of blockchain and cryp- before. However, buying cryptocurrency is not the only tocurrency systems, applications, and technologies are widely way of investing. Investors can also build mining pools to available to companies, end-users, and even malicious ac- generate new coins to make a profit. Profitability in mining tors who want to exploit the computational resources of regular users through cryptojacking malware. Especially operations also attracted attackers to this swiftly-emerging with ready-to-use mining scripts easily provided by service ecosystem. providers (e.g., Coinhive) and untraceable cryptocurrencies Cryptojacking is the act of using the victim’s com- (e.g., Monero), cryptojacking malware has become an in- putational power without consent to mine cryptocurrency. dispensable tool for attackers. Indeed, the banking indus- This unauthorized mining operation costs extra electricity try, major commercial websites, government and military consumption and decreases the victim host’s computa- servers (e.g., US Dept. of Defense), online video sharing platforms (e.g., Youtube), gaming platforms (e.g., Nintendo), tional efficiency dramatically. As a result, the attacker critical infrastructure resources (e.g., routers), and even transforms that unauthorized computational power into recently widely popular remote video conferencing/meeting cryptocurrency.
    [Show full text]
  • CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0
    CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0 CURIE Syntax 1.0 A syntax for expressing Compact URIs W3C Working Draft 2 April 2008 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080402 Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/curie Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126 Diff from previous version: curie-diff.html Editors: Mark Birbeck, webBackplane [email protected] Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PostScript version, PDF version. The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available. Copyright © 2007-2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract The aim of this document is to outline a syntax for expressing URIs in a generic, abbreviated syntax. While it has been produced in conjunction with the XHTML 2 Working Group, it is not specifically targeted at use by XHTML Family Markup Languages. Note that the target audience for this document is Language designers, not the users of those Languages. Status of this Document This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/. - 1 - Table of Contents CURIE Syntax 1.0 This document is a Working Draft of the CURIE Syntax specification. Originally this document was based upon work done in the definition of [XHTML2 [p.15] ], and work done by the RDF-in-HTML Task Force, a joint task force of the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group and XHTML 2 Working Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Peer-To-Peer Data Management
    Université Paris-Sud 11 Ecole Doctorale d’Informatique de Paris-Sud THÈSE Présentée en vue d’obtention du grade de DOCTEUR EN SCIENCES Discipline : Informatique par Spyros Zoupanos Sujet de la thèse : Efficient peer-to-peer data management (Gestion des données efficace en pair-à-pair) Directeurs de thèse : Serge ABITEBOUL et Ioana MANOLESCU Soutenue le 9 décembre 2009 devant le jury composé de : Rapporteurs : M. Bernd AMANN LIP6 - Univ. de Pierre et Marie Curie M. Vasilis VASSALOS Athens Univ. of Economics and Business Examinateurs : Mme. Geneviève JOMIER Univ. Paris-Dauphine M. Patrick VALDURIEZ INRIA Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée et Univ. de Nantes Directeurs de thèse : M. Serge ABITEBOUL INRIA Saclay–Île-de-France et LRI, Université de Paris Sud Mme. Ioana MANOLESCU INRIA Saclay–Île-de-France et LRI, Université de Paris Sud Acknowledgements There were many people that stood by me during these three years and that I would like to thank. First of all, I would like to thank my parents who were always next to me, doing their best to support me in my studies and my life in general. Their help and advices are very important. I would also like to thank my girlfriend Ana who also supported me and was next to me during all the difficult moments of this thesis. I would like to thank my supervisor, Ioana Manolescu, for her help, guid- ance and support. She was always next to me whenever I needed her. She was next to me even during difficult times for her, like during her pregnancy. I believe that part of this work would not have existed if she had not been so passionate with our common work.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Access to XML Documents Over XML Native and Relational Databases
    Controlling Access to XML Documents over XML Native and Relational Databases Lazaros Koromilas, George Chinis, Irini Fundulaki, and Sotiris Ioannidis FORTH-ICS, Greece {koromil,gchinis,fundul,sotiris}@ics.forth.gr Abstract. In this paper we investigate the feasibility and efficiency of mapping XML data and access control policies onto relational and native XML databases for storage and querying. We developed a re-annotation algorithm that computes the XPath query which designates the XML nodes to be re-annotated when an update operation occurs. The algo- rithm uses XPath static analysis and our experimental results show that our re-annotation solution is on the average 7 times faster than annotat- ing the entire document. Keywords: XML, access control, XML to relational mapping. 1 Introduction XML has become an extremely popular format for publishing, exchanging and sharing data by users on the Web. Often this data is sensitive in nature and there- fore it is necessary to ensure selective access, based on access control policies. For this purpose flexible access control frameworks must be built that permit secure XML querying while at the same time respecting the access control poli- cies. Furthermore such a framework must be efficient enough to scale with the number of documents, users, and queries. In this paper we study how to control access to XML documents stored in a relational database and in a native XML store. Prior work proposed the use of RDBMS for storing and querying XML documents [1], to combine the flexibility and the usability of XML with the efficiency and the robustness of a relational schema.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Proceedings
    XML LONDON 2014 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM JUNE 7–8, 2014 XML London 2014 – Conference Proceedings Published by XML London Copyright © 2014 Charles Foster ISBN 978-0-9926471-1-7 Table of Contents General Information. 7 Sponsors. 8 Preface. 9 Benchmarking XSLT Performance - Michael Kay and Debbie Lockett. 10 Streaming Design Patterns or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Stream - Abel Braaksma. 24 From monolithic XML for print/web to lean XML for data: realising linked data for dictionaries - Matt Kohl, Sandro Cirulli and Phil Gooch. 53 XML Processing in Scala - Dino Fancellu and William Narmontas. 63 XML Authoring On Mobile Devices - George Bina. 76 Engineering a XML-based Content Hub for Enterprise Publishing - Elias Weingärtner and Christoph Ludwig. 83 A Visual Comparison Approach to Automated Regression Testing - Celina Huang. 88 Live XML Data - Steven Pemberton. 96 Schematron - More useful than you’d thought - Philip Fennell. 103 Linked Data in a .NET World - Kal Ahmed. 113 Frameless for XML - The Reactive Revolution - Robbert Broersma and Yolijn van der Kolk. 128 Product Usage Schemas - Jorge Luis Williams. 133 An XML-based Approach for Data Preprocessing of Multi-Label Classification Problems - Eduardo Corrêa Gonçalves and Vanessa Braganholo. 148 Using Abstract Content Model and Wikis to link Semantic Web, XML, HTML, JSON and CSV - Lech Rzedzicki. 152 JSON and XML: a new perspective - Eric van der Vlist. 157 MarkLogic- DataLeadershipEvent-A4-v01b.pdf 1 11/21/2013 3:29:18 PM Are you stuck xing YESTERDAY Or are you solving for TOMORROW? The world’s largest banks use MarkLogic to get a 360-degree view of the enterprise, reduce risk and operational costs, and provide better customer service.
    [Show full text]