Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1453RE: [TaxoCoP] Re: Visualization technologies

Expand Messages
  • Roy Roebuck
    Jul 19, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      Amanda:  Thanks for the feedback.


      The following text is probably a bit overwhelming for most, and even for me sometimes, so I also have diagrams (which I’m also told are often overwhelming) to aid the discussion if needed.


      Please note that I typically use one tool to do the M3/M2/M1/M0 modeling and model aggregation/integration/unification across those layers.


      Unfortunately, I still have to procedurally use multiple tools (e.g., intelligence mining) and techniques (e.g., user surveys) to efficiently and effectively populate/aggregate the initial M1 layer with the client/user world view (i.e., their ontology) as an independent M1 domain (e.g., representing a software application, a business process, a form, a database, a concept map), to populate the resultant metadata-modeled M1 domain with relevant M0 client/user data, and to keep the M1 and M0 synchronized with the client’s ever-flowing operational and analytical data and metadata. 


      I then take the resultant independent domain (but now aggregated in my single repository and namespace) M1 layer world views/ontologies (e.g., process models, data models, UML sequence and class diagrams) and corresponding M0 virtualized or migrated class repositories and/or databases, and relate their class and subclass structures to one or more of my seven generalized reference classes (i.e., my generalized “physics-based” taxonomies) using one or more of my seven relation types with my M2 Layer “Reference Catalog”.  From the generalized and integrated ontologies, I then build up my specialized type of “thesaurus”, to unify the diverse and ever-changing vocabulary of the diverse and ever-changing independent world views/ontologies into a unified vocabulary with preferred terms (built largely by consensus of clients/users) and alternate terms (specific to each independent, but now federated, domain).


      Physical aspects:  energy, time, space, matter, intelligence (or dynamic-self-referencing pattern or concept, if you prefer).

      General Reference Catalogs: Location, Organization, Organization Unit, Function, Process, Resource, Mission Requirement

      General Relation Types: Categorization (inheritance hierarchy of “like things”), containment (tree or structural “hierarchy” of “unlike things”), sequence (flow), change (flow), variance (flow), equivalence (categorization), descriptive (has a, about a, attribute, property)

      Generalized Role Types (for Sequence Relation Types): Customer, Supplier, Authority, Performer, Outsource, Partner, Public)


      These are sufficient to my “enterprise management intention, but obviously open to infinite variability and discussion.  I choose to just be practical, not linguistic or philosophical.



      CommIT Enterprises, Inc.

      Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and Knowledge

      Roy Roebuck III
      Senior Enterprise Architect

      2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
      Arlingon, VA



      +1 (703)-598-2351
      +1 (703) 486-5540
      +1 (703) 486-5506


       Add me to your address book...


      From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of axu789
      Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:32 AM
      To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re: Visualization technologies


      Thanks Bob for the URL of ‘The Brain’. I agree with Roy that it
      would be ideal to have modeling tools that are compatible with each
      other for all layers of MDA, at least, from M4, M3, M2, M1 to M0,

      I would hesitate to use a tool that requires me to piece together
      different modeling tools for each layer of MDA, in addition to keep
      track of the upgrades of each version of the individual tools, and
      compatibility of each manifestation generated by the tools.

      In addition, I view this infrastructure level data modeling tool to
      be open in terms of Web enabling standards and technologies, to be
      independent in terms of the separation of process and application
      from build to runtime enviornment, to be comfortable in terms of my
      physical and virtual working environment, where creativity,
      collaboration, and productivity are enhanced, etc.

      How many times do I find myself who would rather take the road that
      I knew than the potential new one which seems to be faster but has
      too many unknown variables? As far as I am concerned, selecting and
      buying tools are not simply for the tools, but also for the building
      of long term partnership with your tool providers.


      Amanda Xu

      --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com, "Roy Roebuck" <Roy.Roebuck@ ...>

      > I've used TheBrain for several projects since its first beta
      > and still use it. Be aware that while TheBrain is an excellent
      tool for
      > modeling and tracking "networks" of ideas/content, it is less
      capable at
      > creating "hierarchies" (i.e., classification structure with
      > attributes) of content, which are fundamental to taxonomies and
      > ontologies.
      > I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb phrases) into one
      > seven "Relation Types": categorization, containment, sequence,
      > variance, equivalence, and descriptive. TheBrain has strong
      support for
      > containment relations, but only limited support for categorization,
      > sequence, change, variance, equivalence, and descriptive relations.
      > Other technologies focus on one or more of these other relations.
      > I've found that the newer ontology tools with a fully open object
      > (i.e., object metaschema in Layer 4 (M3) of OMG's Model Driven
      > Architecture' s (MDA) 4 Layer Metamodel) can support all seven
      > types. I've found that CASE tools and MOF tools tend to have
      > closed/proprietary/ fixed M3 Layer (Unified Object, Data Types,
      > Types) and M2 Layer (General/Reference Classes, Attributes,
      > Integration) models, because their primary focus, and historical
      > purpose, and thus the limit of their vision, is at the M1
      > Application/ Service/Domain Layer for modeling of specific classes,
      > attributes, and relations.
      > Roy
      > CommIT Enterprises, Inc.
      > Enterprise Architecture for
      w:st="on"> Enterprise Management, Security, and
      > Knowledge <blocked::http://www.commiten t.com>
      > Roy Roebuck III
      > Senior Enterprise
      > 2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
      > Arlingon ,
      > <blocked::http://maps. yahoo.com/ py/maps.py?
      Pyt=Tmap&addr= 2231+Crystal+ Dr
      > ive,+Ste+501& csz=Arlingon, +VA&country= us> 22202
      > roy.roebuck@ ... <BLOCKED::mailto: roy.roebuck@ ...>
      > mobile:
      > fax:
      > direct:
      > +1 (703)-598-2351
      > +1 (703) 486-5540
      > +1 (703) 486-5506
      > Add me to your address book...
      > <blocked::https://www. plaxo.com/ add_me?
      u=34360117809& v0=756286& k0=204659
      > 6413>
      > ____________ _________ _________ __
      > From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
      [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com] On
      > Of Bob Bater
      > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 5:26 PM
      > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
      > Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Visualization technologies
      > Thanks to those of you who have replied so far to my question
      > The Brain. Amanda Xu asked what the current URL for The Brain's
      > is. They seem to have moved physically, but the URL is still
      > http://www.thebrain .com/. The
      Brain is now at version 3.03.
      > Regards,
      > Bob
      > >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<
      > >>Principal Associate<<
      > >>InfoPlex Associates<<
      > >>>> Bristol ,
      UK <<<<

    • Show all 27 messages in this topic