[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] RE: [ontolog-forum] RE: [soa-rm] latest Draft ofConcept Map / N-ary Documents specification?
I think the gist of this thread is to answer the question “do Concept Maps require formal definition for interpretation” and if yes, where should that be done. The vendors should definitely be involved IMO.
It seems like there is consensus (or at least a lack of dissention) for CM to be formalized. This could perhaps happen in the OASIS SOA RM TC. Does anyone have any other opinions?
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Roy Roebuck
I've been doing concept mapping for a quite a while, and I've never seen it portrayed so technically as in this forum.
While we're engaging in discussion about concept maps, has anyone invited vendors of concept mapping tools, such as http://www.inspiration.com, http://cmap.IHMC.us, or http://www.agilense.com (using their Graphical Designer) to participate? While Inspiration and CMAP are solely concept mapping tools, Agilense is a knowledge modeling and management server I use for my enterprise management services and enterprise architecture efforts.
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.
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.
>"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
>What about instance, parent relationships?
>While you may answer these very clearly, the exact interpretation is not
>ubiquitous and YAMMV.
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Starbourne Communications Design
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:email@example.com