1466RE: [TaxoCoP] Re: Visualization technologies
- Jul 20 12:50 PM
I do use Agilense WebModeler as the tool I was describing. You made an astute observation on this, because I don’t think I mentioned Agilense in this forum. Actually, Agilense has always communicated to me their willingness to let people evaluate their tool with a 45 day evaluation license, but typically under an NDA so that “reverse-engineering” is constrained. Contact steve@... for further information. Pass him this email/thread if you like. Perhaps he has some online capability he can let you explore/evaluate.
I identified in 2000 that it was the only tool I could find that was flexible enough to support the modeling I need. I’ve found a few other tools that seem close, but I’ve not proven it yet. Agilense is not perfect, requires a “techie” orientation to administer the repository and gain the full power of its feature set, and needs supplemental capabilities, built around what I call my “hub and spoke” integration model. In this hub and spoke, my general/integrating ontology provides the “axle”, a repository like Agilense serves as the “hub”, various data/process integration technologies such as ESB serve as interfacing “hub-bands”, and then a variety of tools serve as “spokes” that support different functions of the enterprise or support different phases of the generalized spiral life cycle management technique we apply.
Our approach enables rapid/adaptive changes in data, metadata, and meta-metadata, such as the composition of our seven reference catalogs (taxonomies), the relations between the catalog entries, and the attributes that describe these entries and relations. The key to increasing the stability of this environment is to provide a mechanism for community/domain consensus building, consensus decisions, and then subsequent variance identification and reporting to the variant author and broader community.
As to the how, practices, etc., that’s the business I’m in, and I don’t normally disclose too many of its details outside of business talks and engagements.
You can review my EA site at http://www.one-world-is.com/beam, and if you’d like internal support with your EA, taxonomies, or ontologies using my approach, contract my services through my current employer, CommIT.
CommIT Enterprises, Inc.
Roy Roebuck III
Senior Enterprise Architect
+1 (703) 486-5540
+1 (703) 486-5506
From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Amanda Xu
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Re: Visualization technologies
Thanks, Roy , for showing me your way. What you did is
amazing and seems very flexible in terms of
anticipating changes and growth of your EA. What is
the one tool that you are referring to for M3/M2/M1/M0
layer modeling - not 'The Brain'? How do you like
'Agile WebModeler'? I could not get a trial version
Replication and synchronization among M1/M0 is quite
challenging. What tools do you use? Do you have
samples or client websites that I can take a look?
In addition to define object, class, instance, their
associations and methods in open standards such as
CWM, MOF, UML, LC classification scheme, etc., keep M2
layer updated is also quite time consuming and labor
intensive. I am wondering if you have any suggestion.
What systems do you use to setup the repository - any
DB, project server, CMS, version control, search
services, etc. for the artifacts?
Luckily, you have the freedom to define your own
thesaurus with the consensus of end users. As long as
it is working within your enterprise, it is fine. How
often do you need to restructure everything due to the
change of location, organization, resources, etc.? Do
you have systems to decentralize the workflow for
maintaining the thesaurus?
As far I am concerned, we need top level ontology to
be agreed upon by standard organization such as W2C,
OMG, OASIS, LC, etc.
For us, librarians, we have to reflect the truth of
being or of the thing. Someone recommended UDC today.
But most of our resources are already in LC
classification and LC subject headings. Why do we
need to reinvent the wheel?
In short, I am still very confused. Thanks a million
for any help!
--- Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@ commitent. com> wrote:
> Amanda: Thanks for the feedback.w:st="on"> Enterprise Management,
> The following text is probably a bit overwhelming
> for most, and even for me sometimes, so I also have
> diagrams (which Iâ€™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
> 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 clientâ€™s
> ever-flowing operational and analytical data and
> 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 â€œphysics-basedâ€
> taxonomies) using one or more of my seven relation
> types with my M2 Layer â€œReference Catalogâ€.
> From the generalized and integrated ontologies, I
> then build up my specialized type of
> â€œthesaurusâ€, 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 â€œlike thingsâ€), containment (tree
> or structural â€œhierarchyâ€ of â€œunlike
> thingsâ€), 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 â€œenterprise 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
> Security, and KnowledgeArchitect
> <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+Drive, +Ste+501& csz=Arlingon, +VA&country= us>
> 22202<blocked::https://www. plaxo.com/ add_me?u= 34360117809& v0=756286& k0=2046596413>
> roy.roebuck@ commitent. com
> <BLOCKED::mailto:roy.roebuck@ commitent. com>
> +1 (703)-598-2351
> +1 (703) 486-5540
> +1 (703) 486-5506
> Add me to your address book...
>On Behalf Of axu789
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
> [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:32 AMthat it
> To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
> Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re: Visualization technologies
> Thanks Bob for the URL of Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe BrainÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.
> I agree with Roy
> would be ideal to have modeling tools that arew:st="on">Roy Roebuck "
> 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
> 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
> 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
> <mailto:TaxoCoP% 40yahoogroups. com> , "
> <Roy.Roebuck@ ...>=== message truncated ===
> > 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,
58-11 197th St .
Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
axu789@yahoo. com (email)
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>