Subject: RE: [soa-rm] RE: [ontolog-forum] RE: [soa-rm] latest Draft of Concept Map / N-ary Documents specification?
Rex: Thanks. Alternatively, it may be too formal for Concept maps and perhaps it should be declared that none or only some of those questions can even be inferred. Much to do, not a lot of time <sigh> Duane ******************************* Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/ Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/ ******************************* -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Rex Brooks Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:48 PM To: [ontolog-forum] ; email@example.com Subject: RE: [soa-rm] RE: [ontolog-forum] RE: [soa-rm] latest Draft of Concept Map / N-ary Documents specification? Understood Duane, I was just expressing my personal opinion and citing my own peculiar use of concept maps because I find them very handy for getting ideas out of my head and into a form where it is somewhat easier to work with them. I actually didn't start using them until prompted by your work. So I will be quite content to use them on my own regardless of whether they become standardized notations. I will just have to be careful not to let my scratchpad work get saved in a formal document. I also plan to start using them in a networked whiteboard application I'm playing with. BTW, I wasn't familiar with YAMMV, and had to look it up. YUP. The relationships actually make my point, since I can write in whatever I want, or whatever I think I'm modeling until it finally becomes more clear. However, you are quite correct that interpretation becomes darn near impossible without some rules. Regards, Rex At 9:39 AM -0800 12/13/05, Duane Nickull wrote: >Rex said: "I would actually prefer if concept maps stayed informal or >relatively informal for usefulness in my brainstorming process before >moving on to my personal process for noodling out constraints." > >This has been identified as a problem since it leads to different people >interpreting things differently. ><Rant> >For example > >"A uses B" > >How would *you* answer the following: > >1. Can A exist without B? >2. Is B aware of A? >3. Is A aware of B? >4. Is the reciprocal relationship "B is used by A" true? >5. Does B need at least one A to exists before it can exist? >6. Is B a complete concept without A? >7. Does A always use B? >8. add transitive, reflexive and all variants.... >.... > >I have avoided use of cardinality but others think that cardinality >exists in concept maps. Does this relationship mean exactly one A and >one B must be present for the concept to be complete or does it >represent multiples. I have seen concept maps with plurality such as: > >"machines are used by workers" > >Why is workers plural? Does it imply that there must be more than one >worker? > >What about instance, parent relationships? ></Rant> > >While you may answer these very clearly, the exact interpretation is not >ubiquitous and YAMMV. > >Duane > >_________________________________________________________________ >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ >Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: >http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ >To Post: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309 _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:email@example.com