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

Re: [TaxoCoP] Visualization technologies

Expand Messages
  • James Funk
    I have also used The Brain for maintaining and navigating the knowledge items that are important to me. I have 520 nodes in my Brain file and have slowly
    Message 1 of 27 , Jun 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I have also used The Brain for maintaining and navigating the knowledge items that are important to me. I have 520 nodes in my Brain file and have slowly migrated all of my files, notes and thoughts to it. 
       
      I also like the visualization that it gives to organizing and searching related concepts and thoughts.
       
      James Funk
      President
      Beyond Accuracy LLC

      I am wondering if anyone else has views on The Brain - or other comparable visualization interfaces like Inxight's Star Tree - as front-ends to structures such as taxonomies?
      Regards,
      Bob
        >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<
      >>Principal Associate<<
      >>InfoPlex Associates<<
        >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<


      Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

    • Amanda Xu
      Back in 1998, I tried to get Brain to work with KnowledgeCite Library resources, where authoritative citation resources were integrated using Windows based
      Message 2 of 27 , Jul 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Back in 1998, I tried to get Brain to work with
        KnowledgeCite Library resources, where authoritative
        citation resources were integrated using Windows based
        file systems, JAVA, and AltaVista search engines. But
        the project did not get fly off the ground because no
        further vendor captalists supported it as far as I
        knew.

        Glad to know that product still is still in use. What
        is the URL to the company site?

        Thanks!

        Amanda Xu

        --- James Funk <jdfunk_tosa@...> wrote:

        > I have also used The Brain for maintaining and
        > navigating the knowledge items that are important to
        > me. I have 520 nodes in my Brain file and have
        > slowly migrated all of my files, notes and thoughts
        > to it.
        >
        > I also like the visualization that it gives to
        > organizing and searching related concepts and
        > thoughts.
        >
        > James Funk
        > President
        > Beyond Accuracy LLC
        >
        >
        > I am wondering if anyone else has views
        > on The Brain - or other comparable visualization
        > interfaces like Inxight's Star Tree - as front-ends
        > to structures such as taxonomies?
        > Regards,
        > Bob
        > >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<
        > >>Principal Associate<<
        > >>InfoPlex Associates<<
        > >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small
        > Business.


        Amanda Xu
        58-11 197th St.
        Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
        718-990-6716 (voice)
        axu789@... (email)










        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Bob Bater
        BlankThanks to those of you who have replied so far to my question regarding The Brain. Amanda Xu asked what the current URL for The Brain s vendors is. They
        Message 3 of 27 , Jul 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Blank

          Thanks to those of you who have replied so far to my question regarding The Brain. Amanda Xu asked what the current URL for The Brain's vendors 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<<<<

        • seth
          I recall looking at The Brain many years ago and meeting its creator and thinking my brain isn t big enough for The Brain . From my perspective, the
          Message 4 of 27 , Jul 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment

            I recall looking at The Brain many years ago and meeting its creator and thinking “my brain isn’t big enough for The Brain”.   From my perspective, the changing orientation of terms caused me to lose context.  As soon as I clicked on something, all of the terms would rearrange and I became disoriented.  However, some people have told me that instead of losing context, this changing orientation allowed them to retain context.  They somehow had a better understanding by seeing how terms moved about.

             

            It reminds me of a friend who could never remember left and right, though he always knew north south east and west.  His directions would be “go down the street and turn south” as opposed to “go down the street and turn left”.  I could not understand this and would say  “left and right are always the same, north south east and west are always changing, how can you remember one and never the other?”.  He responded with “that’s not true, left and right are always changing, north south east and west always remain the same.”   His way of looking at the world retained a different context and perspective.  

             

            I imagine that the same might be said for a changing user interface…  Different users would prefer one context over another.  Does anyone know of formal usability studies that address that issue (for interfaces like the Brain)?

             

            Seth
             

            Bob Bater wrote:


            Thanks to those of you who have replied so far to my question regarding The Brain. Amanda Xu asked what the current URL for The Brain's vendors is. They seem to have moved physically, but the URL is still http://www.thebrain.com/. The Brain is now at version 3.03.

          • Bob Bater
            Seth Early wrote: ...some people have told me that instead of losing context, this changing orientation allowed them to retain context. They somehow had a
            Message 5 of 27 , Jul 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Seth Early wrote:
               
              ...some people have told me that instead of losing context, this changing orientation allowed them to retain context.  They somehow had a better understanding by seeing how terms moved about.
               
              I think Seth makes an interesting point here. Certainly, for me, I expect context to change as I browse through a hierarchical structure. For instance, I store documents on taxonomies in two different places in my knowledge base, one for taxonomies from a taxonomist's point-of-view (techniques for building etc.) and another for taxonomies as information discovery devices (user experience, examples of taxonomies etc.). Of course, some documents cover both aspects, so I don't always know under which category I happened to store something. If I don't find what I want under the first category, I switch to the second one. The Brain gives me all the visual feedback I need in order to know which of the two contexts I'm in. And the other nice thing is that if I do this sort of thing often, then I can set up a link from the one context to the other and switch at a single click.
               
              I find this change of context essential in order to know I'm in the right place, or at least going in the right direction. In another of my workshops, I have my delegates explore the ThinkMap visual thesaurus at http://www.visualthesaurus.com/landing/. They generally love it.
               
               
               
              Regards,
               
              Bob
               
                >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<
              >>Principal
              Associate<<
              >>InfoPlex Associates<<
               
              >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<
               
               
               
            • seth
              Hmmm. I guess humor didn t work there. Or perhaps did not make it in time. I ll delete some of these messages and temporarily moderate the discussions. My
              Message 6 of 27 , Jul 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment

                Hmmm.  I guess humor didn’t work there.  Or perhaps did not make it in time.  

                 

                I’ll delete some of these messages and temporarily moderate the discussions.  My apologies to the community for the distraction. 

                 

                Seth
                 
              • PAULA THORNTON
                The Brain was thrilling to me when it first came out because it was the first offering which was most closely related to the visual relativity research I had
                Message 7 of 27 , Jul 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  The Brain was thrilling to me when it first came out because it was the first offering which was most closely related to the visual 'relativity' research I had seen at CHI 1994. It illustrated the reason hierarchies fail -- relationships are relative.
                   
                  But The Brain still fails to recognize the latter axiom. It still organizes 'things' and doesn't provide access to the real power potential -- defining attributes to the relationships (the space in-between -- the thing that occupies the largest portion of the universe but is so largely ignored).
                • Roy Roebuck
                  I ve used TheBrain for several projects since its first beta release, and still use it. Be aware that while TheBrain is an excellent tool for modeling and
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jul 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment

                    I’ve used TheBrain for several projects since its first beta release, 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 inheritable attributes) of content, which are fundamental to taxonomies and ontologies. 

                     

                    I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb phrases) into one of seven “Relation Types”: categorization, containment, sequence, change, 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 model (i.e., object metaschema in Layer 4 (M3) of OMG’s Model Driven Architecture’s (MDA) 4 Layer Metamodel) can support all seven relation types.  I’ve found that CASE tools and MOF tools tend to have closed/proprietary/fixed M3 Layer (Unified Object, Data Types, Relation Types) and M2 Layer (General/Reference Classes, Attributes, Relations, Integration) models, because their primary focus, and historical purpose, and thus the limit of their vision, is at the M1 Independent Application/Service/Domain Layer for modeling of specific classes, attributes, and relations.

                     

                    Roy

                     

                      

                    CommIT Enterprises, Inc.

                    Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and Knowledge

                    Roy Roebuck III
                    Senior Enterprise Architect

                    2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                    Arlingon, VA
                    22202

                    roy.roebuck@...

                    mobile:
                    fax:  
                    direct:

                    +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 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 regarding The Brain. Amanda Xu asked what the current URL for The Brain's vendors 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 <<<<

                  • Bob Bater
                    Roy, Thanks for your interesting comments, which I have excerpted below. It is good to hear that some have used the Brain since its first beta release (me too)
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jul 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Roy,
                       
                      Thanks for your interesting comments, which I have excerpted below. It is good to hear that some have used the Brain since its first beta release (me too) and are still using it.
                       
                      However, I obviously have some learning to do here, because I don't understand why a hierarchy must have inheritable attributes to be a hierarchy. I remember that this was discussed fairly recently in this group, but I don't remember the conclusion (if any).
                       
                      The hierarchies (taxonomies, thesauri) I generally find myself building recognize just three types of hierarchical relationship: generic, partitive and instantial. The generic relationship, I guess, is equivalent to your 'categorization' and the partitive to your 'containment', but I'm not sure which of your relations the instantial relationship equates to. Nor do I see how the containment relation type can always support inheritance. An escalator for instance, contains the major components 'steps', 'handrail', 'electric motor' etc.. But since the steps are usually metal and the handrail rubber or plastic, I can't see what's being inherited here, except membership of the top-level class (although of course, 'handrail' could also be a member of an entirely different class). But perhaps you wouldn't regard this as an example of a taxonomy?
                       
                      I am also interested to know why you say The Brain has "only limited support for categorization, sequence, change, variance, equivalence, and descriptive relations" when it allows you to assign a link type to a link between two terms or concepts and to show those links in different colours. I regard this as equivalent to Topic Maps allowing the typing of associations. But again, perhaps there is more to representing these other types of relation than just naming them?
                       
                      Regards,
                       
                      Bob

                        >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<

                      >>Principal
                      Associate<<
                      >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                       
                      >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<

                      On 05 July 2006 18:22 Roy Roebuck said:
                       

                       ... it is less capable at creating “hierarchies” (i.e., classification structure with inheritable attributes) of content, which are fundamental to taxonomies and ontologies. 

                      I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb phrases) into one of seven “Relation Types”: categorization, containment, sequence, change, 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. 

                      .

                    • Roy Roebuck
                      Hi Bob: Good feedback. Please consider the following responses. I use hierarchy and tree differently, now referencing some knowledgeable content management
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jul 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Hi Bob:  Good feedback. 

                         

                        Please consider the following responses.

                         

                        I use hierarchy and “tree” differently, now referencing some knowledgeable content management system (CMS) folks at http://www.cmswiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Classification. (Follow the Taxonomy link for their hierarchy vs. tree discussion.)  

                         

                        According to my understanding of their material (which also fits my own research so is comfortable for me), hierarchies have inheritable attributes, and my own “categorization” relation type is intended to be such a hierarchy, not only of “classes” but also of “instances” of those classes, which might suffice as your “instantial” relation. 

                         

                        I use this “categorization” relation type in building up online “reference catalogs” (i.e., plain-speak for taxonomies) of types and instances of the categorized things, which I subsequently use for “lookups” in online forms and such to provide consistency in adding this reference as broader context and narrower content for the form’s subject.

                         

                        Your “partitive relation would probably correspond to my “containment” relation type, representing a “tree” structure (with non-inherited attributes) of different “types” of things (e.g., your escalator example).  I typically describe my “containment” relation type as “container/component” or “distribution/composition” types of relations.

                         

                        The remainder of my relation types (i.e., sequence, change, variance, equivalence, and descriptive) would also be “trees” of diverse things in space, energy, matter, time, or concept.

                         

                        (By the way, when a user filling in a form creates a “relation instance” of these seven relation types between my seven root taxonomies (i.e., generalized subject categories or references catalogs) during the process of selecting a catalog’s “lookup” value, the user is actually defining a “semantic thread” (i.e., a compound assertion consisting of multiple triples/assertions) that, when taken in the aggregate for a particular user’s current viewpoint, forms an “ontology” of the user’s subject “world view”.)

                         

                        As to TheBrain’s capabilities, I didn’t say it couldn’t create the various relation types, it is just weak in their use (i.e., only the “containment” network relation is “managed” by TheBrain’s UI.)

                         

                        Roy

                         

                          

                        CommIT Enterprises, Inc.

                        Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and Knowledge

                        Roy Roebuck III
                        Senior Enterprise Architect

                        2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                        Arlingon, VA
                        22202

                        roy.roebuck@...

                        mobile:
                        fax:  
                        direct:

                        +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 Bob Bater
                        Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:54 PM
                        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Visualization technologies

                         

                        Roy,

                         

                        Thanks for your interesting comments, which I have excerpted below. It is good to hear that some have used the Brain since its first beta release (me too) and are still using it.

                         

                        However, I obviously have some learning to do here, because I don't understand why a hierarchy must have inheritable attributes to be a hierarchy. I remember that this was discussed fairly recently in this group, but I don't remember the conclusion (if any).

                         

                        The hierarchies (taxonomies, thesauri) I generally find myself building recognize just three types of hierarchical relationship: generic, partitive and instantial. The generic relationship, I guess, is equivalent to your 'categorization' and the partitive to your 'containment', but I'm not sure which of your relations the instantial relationship equates to. Nor do I see how the containment relation type can always support inheritance. An escalator for instance, contains the major components 'steps', 'handrail', 'electric motor' etc.. But since the steps are usually metal and the handrail rubber or plastic, I can't see what's being inherited here, except membership of the top-level class (although of course, 'handrail' could also be a member of an entirely different class). But perhaps you wouldn't regard this as an example of a taxonomy?

                         

                        I am also interested to know why you say The Brain has "only limited support for categorization, sequence, change, variance, equivalence, and descriptive relations" when it allows you to assign a link type to a link between two terms or concepts and to show those links in different colours. I regard this as equivalent to Topic Maps allowing the typing of associations. But again, perhaps there is more to representing these other types of relation than just naming them?

                         

                        Regards,

                         

                        Bob

                          >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<

                        >>Principal Associate<<
                        >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                          >>>> Bristol , UK <<<<

                        On 05 July 2006 18:22 Roy Roebuck said:

                         

                         ... it is less capable at creating “hierarchies” (i.e., classification structure with inheritable attributes) of content, which are fundamental to taxonomies and ontologies. 

                        I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb phrases) into one of seven “Relation Types”: categorization, containment, sequence, change, 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. 

                        .



                      • karlhjr
                        Hello - I m a new member of this group, having joined yesterday although I should have joined months ago. I ve joined now because a colleague let me know about
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jul 6, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello -
                          I'm a new member of this group, having joined yesterday although I
                          should have joined months ago. I've joined now because a colleague
                          let me know about this thread.

                          I've been using the PersonalBrain software since meeting its
                          developer, Harlan Hugh, at a workshop in late 1998. It took me a
                          while to figure out how to leverage it, but I kept returning to it
                          because it is a relationship-based tool that enables you to deal
                          with complexity. This is also the first software tool I found that
                          takes advantage of the computer as a new medium (something that
                          tanscends the paper-based metaphor).

                          TheBrain Technologies also has a group tool, the Enterprise
                          Knowledge Platform, BrainEKP. I'll be having a conversation with
                          Harlan next week, and will organize a demo that will discuss both
                          products (send a message to karl.hebenstreit@... if you're
                          interested; also check out the demo available at
                          http://technet.km.gov/GovBrain)

                          For the past few months, I've been referring to these products as
                          a "dynamic mind map". I don't have an extensive background with
                          taxonomies, but I see traditional taxonomies as a special case of a
                          more general dynamic, non-hierachical categorization schema that
                          allows entities to be assigned to multiple categories to varying
                          degrees. One of the reasons I'm intrigued by these tools is that I
                          believe they have the potential to deal with this more general case.

                          Karl Hebenstreit, Jr.
                          US General Services Administration
                          Co-Chair, KMWG Technology SIG
                          http://technet.km.gov
                        • Bob Bater
                          06 July 2006 17:24, Karl Hebenstreit, Jr. said: I don t have an extensive background with taxonomies, but I see traditional taxonomies as a special case of a
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jul 8, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            06 July 2006 17:24, Karl Hebenstreit, Jr. said:
                             
                            I don't have an extensive background with taxonomies, but I see traditional taxonomies as a special case of a more general dynamic, non-hierachical categorization schema that allows entities to be assigned to multiple categories to varying degrees. One of the reasons I'm intrigued by these tools is that I believe they have the potential to deal with this more general case.

                            Karl,
                             
                            I couldn't agree with you more. I see the three main 'schemas' I deal with - ontologies, taxonomies and thesauri - as 'sub-schemas' of a much more general world of highly networked relationships. Which is why I refer to Topics Maps as 'Indexing in 3D'. Tools like IHMC Cmap Tools and The Brain, which allow more than just plain hierarchical relationships to be expressed, do indeed come close to being able to represent this highly networked schema, but I must still give Topic Maps the prize for the greatest flexibility, if not ease of use.
                             
                            Regards,
                             
                            Bob

                              >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<

                            >>Principal
                            Associate<<
                            >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                             
                            >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<


                            .

                          • Bob Bater
                            Hi Roy. Just a brief reply for now, since I m off on a few days leave shortly. I m a little confused still, since you say I use hierarchy and tree
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jul 8, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Roy.
                               
                              Just a brief reply for now, since I'm off on a few days leave shortly.
                               
                              I'm a little confused still, since you say 'I use hierarchy and “tree” differently...' and reference CMSWiki (to which I have contributed, BTW). Yet in the article on taxonomies, CMSWiki says ' The basic simple taxonomy is a hierarchy (or tree) '. I'd be interested to know what difference you perceive. I also note BTW that the article appears to contradict itself, when in one sentence it says ' Things in a subclass are the same type of thing (living organisms) as the members of its parent class', then, a couple of paragraphs later, ' The items in a subclass (e.g., species) may not be the same type of thing as in the parent class'. Hmmm. Not sure what's going on here. Or am I not reading it right?
                               
                              I'm very interested in exploring your types of relation further at some point, if that's OK. But I'll have to pick the thread up again once I'm back from leave, although I'm then off to Europe for a month on a project, so it might be 10 days or so before I get back to you.

                              À

                              bientôt,
                              Bob

                                >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<

                              >>Principal
                              Associate<<
                              >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                               
                              >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<

                               
                               
                               
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Roy Roebuck
                              Sent: 06 July 2006 05:50
                              To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Visualization technologies

                              Hi Bob:  Good feedback. 

                              Please consider the following responses.

                              I use hierarchy and “tree” differently, now referencing some knowledgeable content management system (CMS) folks at http://www.cmswiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Classification. (Follow the Taxonomy link for their hierarchy vs. tree discussion.)  

                              According to my understanding of their material (which also fits my own research so is comfortable for me), hierarchies have inheritable attributes, and my own “categorization” relation type is intended to be such a hierarchy, not only of “classes” but also of “instances” of those classes, which might suffice as your “instantial” relation. 

                              I use this “categorization” relation type in building up online “reference catalogs” (i.e., plain-speak for taxonomies) of types and instances of the categorized things, which I subsequently use for “lookups” in online forms and such to provide consistency in adding this reference as broader context and narrower content for the form’s subject.

                              Your “partitive relation would probably correspond to my “containment” relation type, representing a “tree” structure (with non-inherited attributes) of different “types” of things (e.g., your escalator example).  I typically describe my “containment” relation type as “container/component” or “distribution/composition” types of relations.

                              The remainder of my relation types (i.e., sequence, change, variance, equivalence, and descriptive) would also be “trees” of diverse things in space, energy, matter, time, or concept.

                              (By the way, when a user filling in a form creates a “relation instance” of these seven relation types between my seven root taxonomies (i.e., generalized subject categories or references catalogs) during the process of selecting a catalog’s “lookup” value, the user is actually defining a “semantic thread” (i.e., a compound assertion consisting of multiple triples/assertions) that, when taken in the aggregate for a particular user’s current viewpoint, forms an “ontology” of the user’s subject “world view”.)

                              As to TheBrain’s capabilities, I didn’t say it couldn’t create the various relation types, it is just weak in their use (i.e., only the “containment” network relation is “managed” by TheBrain’s UI.)

                              Roy

                                

                              CommIT Enterprises, Inc.

                              Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and Knowledge

                              Roy Roebuck III
                              Senior Enterprise Architect

                              2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                              Arlingon, VA
                              22202

                              roy.roebuck@...

                              mobile:
                              fax:  
                              direct:

                              +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 Bob Bater
                              Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:54 PM
                              To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Visualization technologies

                              Roy,

                              Thanks for your interesting comments, which I have excerpted below. It is good to hear that some have used the Brain since its first beta release (me too) and are still using it.

                              However, I obviously have some learning to do here, because I don't understand why a hierarchy must have inheritable attributes to be a hierarchy. I remember that this was discussed fairly recently in this group, but I don't remember the conclusion (if any).

                              The hierarchies (taxonomies, thesauri) I generally find myself building recognize just three types of hierarchical relationship: generic, partitive and instantial. The generic relationship, I guess, is equivalent to your 'categorization' and the partitive to your 'containment', but I'm not sure which of your relations the instantial relationship equates to. Nor do I see how the containment relation type can always support inheritance. An escalator for instance, contains the major components 'steps', 'handrail', 'electric motor' etc.. But since the steps are usually metal and the handrail rubber or plastic, I can't see what's being inherited here, except membership of the top-level class (although of course, 'handrail' could also be a member of an entirely different class). But perhaps you wouldn't regard this as an example of a taxonomy?

                              I am also interested to know why you say The Brain has "only limited support for categorization, sequence, change, variance, equivalence, and descriptive relations" when it allows you to assign a link type to a link between two terms or concepts and to show those links in different colours. I regard this as equivalent to Topic Maps allowing the typing of associations. But again, perhaps there is more to representing these other types of relation than just naming them?

                              Regards,

                              Bob

                                >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<
                              >>Principal Associate<<
                              >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                                >>>> Bristol , UK <<<<

                              On 05 July 2006 18:22 Roy Roebuck said:

                               ... it is less capable at creating “hierarchies” (i.e., classification structure with inheritable attributes) of content, which are fundamental to taxonomies and ontologies. 

                              I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb phrases) into one of seven “Relation Types”: categorization, containment, sequence, change, 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. 

                              .



                            • karl.hebenstreit@gsa.gov
                              Bob - Thanks for your comments. I ll post a reply back to the whole group in a couple of days, after I have a conversation with my contacts at TheBrain this
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jul 11, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Bob -
                                Thanks for your comments.

                                I'll post a reply back to the whole group in a couple of days, after I have
                                a conversation with my contacts at TheBrain this afternoon. I agree with
                                you on Topic Maps. Support for XML Topic Maps is one of the questions I'm
                                planning to ask.

                                Appreciatively,
                                Karl






                                "Bob Bater"
                                <bbater@infoplex- To
                                uk.com> TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent by: cc
                                TaxoCoP@yahoogrou
                                ps.com Subject
                                RE: [TaxoCoP] Re: Visualization
                                technologies (TheBrain Technologies
                                07/08/2006 02:35 software)
                                PM


                                Please respond to
                                TaxoCoP@yahoogrou
                                ps.com






                                06 July 2006 17:24, Karl Hebenstreit, Jr. said:

                                I don't have an extensive background with taxonomies, but I see traditional
                                taxonomies as a special case of a more general dynamic, non-hierachical
                                categorization schema that allows entities to be assigned to multiple
                                categories to varying degrees. One of the reasons I'm intrigued by these
                                tools is that I believe they have the potential to deal with this more
                                general case.

                                Karl,

                                I couldn't agree with you more. I see the three main 'schemas' I deal with
                                - ontologies, taxonomies and thesauri - as 'sub-schemas' of a much more
                                general world of highly networked relationships. Which is why I refer to
                                Topics Maps as 'Indexing in 3D'. Tools like IHMC Cmap Tools and The Brain,
                                which allow more than just plain hierarchical relationships to be
                                expressed, do indeed come close to being able to represent this highly
                                networked schema, but I must still give Topic Maps the prize for the
                                greatest flexibility, if not ease of use.

                                Regards,

                                Bob


                                >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<
                                >>Principal Associate<<
                                >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                                >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<



                                .
                                (Embedded image moved to file: pic20489.gif)
                              • Bob Bater
                                Roy, Inheritance I can accept that some hierarchies demand or imply inherited attributes. But as I suggested in my preceding posting, some hierarchies don t
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jul 18, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Roy,

                                  Inheritance

                                  I can accept that some hierarchies demand or imply inherited attributes. But as I suggested in my preceding posting, some hierarchies don't (escalators). I would be very interested to hear from anyone on this list who has encountered this issue and has managed to make some sense of it. In the meantime, I shall leave the question open and assume that some hierarchical relationships require inheritance, and some don't. It would be useful to have a way of indicating, through relationship naming conventions, whether a hierarchy implied or discounted inheritance.
                                   

                                  Types and Instances

                                  It is interesting (to me at least!) that this discussion is overlapping with the other stream, where Karl Hebenstreit, Jr. seems to agree with me that it can be important to distinguish between a class-subclass relationship and a class-instance relationship, as the XTM Topic Maps standard insists. It seems that this distinction is unimportant in your application - which may be perfectly valid - but I am interested to hear your views on when it might be important to distinguish between a subclass and an instance - not to mention the distinction between an instance and an occurrence (in XTM Topic Maps terminology).
                                   

                                  Semantic Thread

                                  I must confess to not entirely understanding your application context, but your concept of a user "defining a “semantic thread”" as they make their choices in your forms, is, I think, useful, indicating as it does, the user's specific 'Point-of-View' of whatever information resource they are addressing. The point is, I think, that we have to try to cater for as many 'Points-of-View' as possible, in terms of mental schemata (mindset, if you like) and habitual terminology. I am aware of one traditional mechanism for doing that - the thesaurus - and one modern, more technical mechanism - Topic Maps. Have you - or has anyone - an alternative mechanism?
                                   
                                  If I had a bit more time, I would have liked to explore your various types of relationships. I wonder whether, in the meantime, others might like to comment on these interesting issues?
                                   
                                  Regards,
                                   
                                  Bob

                                    >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<

                                  >>Principal
                                  Associate<<
                                  >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                                   
                                  >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<

                                • axu789
                                  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
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jul 19, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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,
                                    etc.

                                    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.

                                    Cheers,

                                    Amanda Xu




                                    --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Roebuck" <Roy.Roebuck@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I've used TheBrain for several projects since its first beta
                                    release,
                                    > 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
                                    inheritable
                                    > attributes) of content, which are fundamental to taxonomies and
                                    > ontologies.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb phrases) into one
                                    of
                                    > seven "Relation Types": categorization, containment, sequence,
                                    change,
                                    > 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
                                    model
                                    > (i.e., object metaschema in Layer 4 (M3) of OMG's Model Driven
                                    > Architecture's (MDA) 4 Layer Metamodel) can support all seven
                                    relation
                                    > types. I've found that CASE tools and MOF tools tend to have
                                    > closed/proprietary/fixed M3 Layer (Unified Object, Data Types,
                                    Relation
                                    > Types) and M2 Layer (General/Reference Classes, Attributes,
                                    Relations,
                                    > Integration) models, because their primary focus, and historical
                                    > purpose, and thus the limit of their vision, is at the M1
                                    Independent
                                    > Application/Service/Domain Layer for modeling of specific classes,
                                    > attributes, and relations.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Roy
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > CommIT Enterprises, Inc.
                                    >
                                    > Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and
                                    > Knowledge <blocked::http://www.commitent.com>
                                    >
                                    > Roy Roebuck III
                                    > Senior Enterprise Architect
                                    >
                                    > 2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                                    > Arlingon, VA
                                    > <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
                                    Behalf
                                    > 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
                                    regarding
                                    > The Brain. Amanda Xu asked what the current URL for The Brain's
                                    vendors
                                    > 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<<<<
                                    >
                                  • Leonard Will
                                    In message on Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Bob Bater wrote ... The trouble with the things
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jul 19, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In message <NDEFLGFFOLCGIGCFNPJKCEGLDBAA.bbater@...> on Tue,
                                      18 Jul 2006, Bob Bater <bbater@...> wrote
                                      >I can accept that some hierarchies demand or imply inherited
                                      >attributes. But as I suggested in my preceding posting, some
                                      >hierarchies don't (escalators). I would be very interested to hear from
                                      >anyone on this list who has encountered this issue and has managed to
                                      >make some sense of it. In the meantime, I shall leave the question open
                                      >and assume that some hierarchical relationships require inheritance,
                                      >and some don't. It would be useful to have a way of indicating, through
                                      >relationship naming conventions, whether a hierarchy implied or
                                      >discounted inheritance.

                                      The trouble with the things that are popularly called "taxonomies" is
                                      that they generally obscure or mix up the basis on which their
                                      hierarchies are constructed. I therefore prefer to talk about two
                                      better-defined structures: the thesaurus and the faceted classification
                                      scheme. "Taxonomies" often adopt some of the principles of these, though
                                      in an unsystematic way.

                                      1. Thesaurus
                                      In a thesaurus, hierarchies are built on the types you relationship you
                                      mentions previously: generic, partitive and instantial. These
                                      relationships apply only between concepts within the same fundamental
                                      facet or category, such as objects, people, activities, abstract
                                      concepts, places, and so on. When the relationship is generic or
                                      instantial, inheritance applies: the narrower concept inherits all the
                                      properties of the broader concept.

                                      The partitive, or part/whole relationship is restricted to a few special
                                      cases, such as parts of the body, disciplines, geographical areas and
                                      the structures of social organisations such as military units. It is
                                      dangerously misleading to define handrails or steps as parts of
                                      escalators, because there are many handrails and steps which are not
                                      parts of escalators. When dealing with objects I generally find it
                                      preferable to use a structure such as the following:

                                      escalators and escalator components
                                      - escalator components
                                      - escalators
                                      - - aluminium escalators
                                      - - wooden escalators
                                      etc.

                                      The term "escalator components" can then be assigned to documents in
                                      addition to the general component term such as "handrails", "steps" or
                                      "motors". The British Standard for thesaurus construction,
                                      BS8723-2:2005, para. 7.3.3 d), advises that a "complex concept should
                                      usually be split if the term's focus represents a properly, part or
                                      component of the difference", so it is better not to use terms such as
                                      "escalator handrails", "escalator motors" and so on.

                                      A thesaurus built in this way is appropriate for post-coordinate
                                      searching, where concepts are combined in a search statement such as

                                      "handrails AND escalator components".

                                      2. Faceted classification
                                      Concepts in a classification scheme are typically "pre-coordinated", so
                                      that compound concepts are built at the time of indexing rather than at
                                      the time of searching.

                                      In that case concepts from different facets can be arranged one below
                                      the other in a kind of hierarchy, but in which the relationships are not
                                      the same as the thesaurus BT/NT relationships. It is best if node labels
                                      are included explicitly in a display to show where facets change, for
                                      example:

                                      <objects>
                                      bicycles
                                      mountain bicycles
                                      <activities>
                                      manufacture
                                      repairing
                                      <parts>
                                      wheels
                                      racing bicycles
                                      <activities>
                                      manufacture
                                      racing
                                      road racing
                                      <people>
                                      cyclists
                                      repairing
                                      <people>
                                      cycle mechanics
                                      <parts>
                                      pedals
                                      wheels

                                      Here node labels containing facet names have been shown in angle
                                      brackets. These are not classes to which documents would be assigned,
                                      but just show how the structure has been constructed.

                                      In this structure, there are some hierarchical relationships, where (a)
                                      "bicycles" is a broader term of "mountain bicycles" and "racing
                                      bicycles", and (b) "road racing" is a narrower term of "racing". In each
                                      case the concepts in these relationships belong to the same facet, of
                                      "objects" in the first case and "activities" in the second.

                                      When a change of facet occurs, the relationship is not one of
                                      subordination but of coordination. The two occurrences of "manufacture",
                                      for example, are interpreted as labelling the compound concepts

                                      mountain bicycles : manufacture
                                      racing bicycles : manufacture

                                      the occurrence of "cyclists" here represents the compound concept

                                      racing bicycles : road racing : cyclists

                                      and the two occurrences of "wheels" represent the concepts

                                      mountain bicycles : wheels
                                      bicycles : wheels


                                      The concepts of "manufacture", "cyclists" and "wheels" could occur in
                                      many other contexts in the classification. They might also occur in
                                      their own right, uncombined, for general treatments of these topics. To
                                      identify these compound concepts we can either use a string of terms,
                                      linked by symbols such as colons as I have done above, or a symbolic
                                      notation which may be more concise and which may use distinct symbols to
                                      show which facets are being combined, as is done in the UDC [Universal
                                      Decimal Classification]. A symbolic notation is not essential for a
                                      classification scheme, and in schemes called "taxonomies" it is often
                                      dispensed with, the strings of terms being used instead.

                                      In records management, facets are often combined in the order
                                      <functions> : <activities> : <topics/transactions/tasks>. This sequence
                                      has been found appropriate for this application, but different
                                      sequences, or "citation orders", may be appropriate for other types of
                                      classification. For example, the Classification Research Group suggest
                                      that the following order will often be the best, particularly for
                                      technical subjects:

                                      thing - kind - part - property - material - process - operation- patient
                                      (i.e. system operated on) - product - by-product - agent - space - time

                                      As this is normally applied within a specific discipline, we can think
                                      of the "discipline", "subject area" or "function" facet as preceding
                                      this list.

                                      I'm sorry that this message has turned out rather long, but Bob did ask
                                      for a fuller discussion! I hope that this is of some help, and would be
                                      interested to know whether other people agree with my interpretation.

                                      Leonard Will
                                      --
                                      Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                                      Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                                      27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
                                      L.Will@... Sheena.Will@...
                                      ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
                                    • Janice M Herd
                                      For those of you who read the full description of Thesauri, controlled vocabularies and classification provided by Mr. Wills. It was well written. Just a note:
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Jul 19, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        For those of you who read the full description of Thesauri, controlled vocabularies and classification provided by Mr. Wills.
                                        It was well written.
                                        Just a note: The American NISO standard for thesauri is Z39.19. It has been revised recently and can be read at http://www.niso.org/committees/MT-info.html
                                        By the way, included on the advisory board for this standard were many great minds who are experts in the fields of knowledge management and information architecture such as Peter Morville (the father of IA). He will be speaking about his book "Ambient Findability" tomorrow here at The Library of Congress 11:30AM for those of you who are in the Washington Metropolitan Area.
                                        Jan






                                        >> L.Will@... 7/19/06 11:38:38 AM >>>
                                        In message <NDEFLGFFOLCGIGCFNPJKCEGLDBAA.bbater@...> on Tue,
                                        18 Jul 2006, Bob Bater <bbater@...> wrote
                                        >I can accept that some hierarchies demand or imply inherited
                                        >attributes. But as I suggested in my preceding posting, some
                                        >hierarchies don't (escalators). I would be very interested to hear from
                                        >anyone on this list who has encountered this issue and has managed to
                                        >make some sense of it. In the meantime, I shall leave the question open
                                        >and assume that some hierarchical relationships require inheritance,
                                        >and some don't. It would be useful to have a way of indicating, through
                                        >relationship naming conventions, whether a hierarchy implied or
                                        >discounted inheritance.

                                        The trouble with the things that are popularly called "taxonomies" is
                                        that they generally obscure or mix up the basis on which their
                                        hierarchies are constructed. I therefore prefer to talk about two
                                        better-defined structures: the thesaurus and the faceted classification
                                        scheme. "Taxonomies" often adopt some of the principles of these, though
                                        in an unsystematic way.

                                        1. Thesaurus
                                        In a thesaurus, hierarchies are built on the types you relationship you
                                        mentions previously: generic, partitive and instantial. These
                                        relationships apply only between concepts within the same fundamental
                                        facet or category, such as objects, people, activities, abstract
                                        concepts, places, and so on. When the relationship is generic or
                                        instantial, inheritance applies: the narrower concept inherits all the
                                        properties of the broader concept.

                                        The partitive, or part/whole relationship is restricted to a few special
                                        cases, such as parts of the body, disciplines, geographical areas and
                                        the structures of social organisations such as military units. It is
                                        dangerously misleading to define handrails or steps as parts of
                                        escalators, because there are many handrails and steps which are not
                                        parts of escalators. When dealing with objects I generally find it
                                        preferable to use a structure such as the following:

                                        escalators and escalator components
                                        - escalator components
                                        - escalators
                                        - - aluminium escalators
                                        - - wooden escalators
                                        etc.

                                        The term "escalator components" can then be assigned to documents in
                                        addition to the general component term such as "handrails", "steps" or
                                        "motors". The British Standard for thesaurus construction,
                                        BS8723-2:2005, para. 7.3.3 d), advises that a "complex concept should
                                        usually be split if the term's focus represents a properly, part or
                                        component of the difference", so it is better not to use terms such as
                                        "escalator handrails", "escalator motors" and so on.

                                        A thesaurus built in this way is appropriate for post-coordinate
                                        searching, where concepts are combined in a search statement such as

                                        "handrails AND escalator components".

                                        2. Faceted classification
                                        Concepts in a classification scheme are typically "pre-coordinated", so
                                        that compound concepts are built at the time of indexing rather than at
                                        the time of searching.

                                        In that case concepts from different facets can be arranged one below
                                        the other in a kind of hierarchy, but in which the relationships are not
                                        the same as the thesaurus BT/NT relationships. It is best if node labels
                                        are included explicitly in a display to show where facets change, for
                                        example:

                                        <objects>
                                        bicycles
                                        mountain bicycles
                                        <activities>
                                        manufacture
                                        repairing
                                        <parts>
                                        wheels
                                        racing bicycles
                                        <activities>
                                        manufacture
                                        racing
                                        road racing
                                        <people>
                                        cyclists
                                        repairing
                                        <people>
                                        cycle mechanics
                                        <parts>
                                        pedals
                                        wheels

                                        Here node labels containing facet names have been shown in angle
                                        brackets. These are not classes to which documents would be assigned,
                                        but just show how the structure has been constructed.

                                        In this structure, there are some hierarchical relationships, where (a)
                                        "bicycles" is a broader term of "mountain bicycles" and "racing
                                        bicycles", and (b) "road racing" is a narrower term of "racing". In each
                                        case the concepts in these relationships belong to the same facet, of
                                        "objects" in the first case and "activities" in the second.

                                        When a change of facet occurs, the relationship is not one of
                                        subordination but of coordination. The two occurrences of "manufacture",
                                        for example, are interpreted as labelling the compound concepts

                                        mountain bicycles : manufacture
                                        racing bicycles : manufacture

                                        the occurrence of "cyclists" here represents the compound concept

                                        racing bicycles : road racing : cyclists

                                        and the two occurrences of "wheels" represent the concepts

                                        mountain bicycles : wheels
                                        bicycles : wheels


                                        The concepts of "manufacture", "cyclists" and "wheels" could occur in
                                        many other contexts in the classification. They might also occur in
                                        their own right, uncombined, for general treatments of these topics. To
                                        identify these compound concepts we can either use a string of terms,
                                        linked by symbols such as colons as I have done above, or a symbolic
                                        notation which may be more concise and which may use distinct symbols to
                                        show which facets are being combined, as is done in the UDC [Universal
                                        Decimal Classification]. A symbolic notation is not essential for a
                                        classification scheme, and in schemes called "taxonomies" it is often
                                        dispensed with, the strings of terms being used instead.

                                        In records management, facets are often combined in the order
                                        <functions> : <activities> : <topics/transactions/tasks>. This sequence
                                        has been found appropriate for this application, but different
                                        sequences, or "citation orders", may be appropriate for other types of
                                        classification. For example, the Classification Research Group suggest
                                        that the following order will often be the best, particularly for
                                        technical subjects:

                                        thing - kind - part - property - material - process - operation- patient
                                        (i.e. system operated on) - product - by-product - agent - space - time

                                        As this is normally applied within a specific discipline, we can think
                                        of the "discipline", "subject area" or "function" facet as preceding
                                        this list.

                                        I'm sorry that this message has turned out rather long, but Bob did ask
                                        for a fuller discussion! I hope that this is of some help, and would be
                                        interested to know whether other people agree with my interpretation.

                                        Leonard Will
                                        --
                                        Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                                        Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                                        27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
                                        L.Will@... Sheena.Will@...
                                        ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------


                                        Jan Herd
                                        Business Reference Librarian
                                        Science, Technology & Business Division
                                        The Library of Congress
                                        Washington, D.C. 20540
                                        Tel. 202 707-1216
                                        Fax 202 707-1925
                                      • Roy Roebuck
                                        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
                                        Message 19 of 27 , 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
                                          22202

                                          roy.roebuck@...

                                          mobile:
                                          fax:  
                                          direct:

                                          +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,
                                          etc.

                                          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.

                                          Cheers,

                                          Amanda Xu

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

                                          >
                                          > I've used TheBrain for several projects since its first beta
                                          release,
                                          > 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
                                          inheritable
                                          > attributes) of content, which are fundamental to taxonomies and
                                          > ontologies.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb phrases) into one
                                          of
                                          > seven "Relation Types": categorization, containment, sequence,
                                          change,
                                          > 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
                                          model
                                          > (i.e., object metaschema in Layer 4 (M3) of OMG's Model Driven
                                          > Architecture' s (MDA) 4 Layer Metamodel) can support all seven
                                          relation
                                          > types. I've found that CASE tools and MOF tools tend to have
                                          > closed/proprietary/ fixed M3 Layer (Unified Object, Data Types,
                                          Relation
                                          > Types) and M2 Layer (General/Reference Classes, Attributes,
                                          Relations,
                                          > Integration) models, because their primary focus, and historical
                                          > purpose, and thus the limit of their vision, is at the M1
                                          Independent
                                          > 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
                                          Architect
                                          >
                                          > 2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                                          > Arlingon ,
                                          w:st="on">VA
                                          > <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
                                          Behalf
                                          > 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
                                          regarding
                                          > The Brain. Amanda Xu asked what the current URL for The Brain's
                                          vendors
                                          > 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 <<<<
                                          >

                                        • Bob Bater
                                          Leonard, Many thanks for your tour de force explanation of these issues. Yes, I did ask for a fuller discussion, and you have been most generous. I shall
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Jul 19, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Leonard,
                                             
                                            Many thanks for your tour de force explanation of these issues. Yes, I did ask for a fuller discussion, and you have been most generous.
                                             
                                            I shall remember to be more cautious when dealing with 'taxonomies' which involve the partitive relationship for objects and their components. I note BTW that your advice is more-or-less mirrored in the NISO standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19, which I suppose is not surprising, since it references ISO 2788, which is thus a common ancestor for both the ANSI/NISO standard and the BS 8723 you mention, and therefore represents accepted best practice.
                                             
                                            As I mentioned in a preceding post, I am still very interested in exploring Roy Roebuck's seven 'relation types' when I have a bit more time, because I have been involved in thesaurus projects which required qualified 'RT' relationships. When Roy mentions OMG's MDA, it seems to me that we are witnessing a degree of convergence between conventional practices in information science and practices which have evolved from Knowledge Engineering (erstwhile 'Artificial Intelligence'). I am bound to wonder if you have any views on qualified relationships, RT, NT or otherwise?
                                             
                                            Come to think of it, that's an interesting case-in-point. Are 'Knowledge Engineering' and 'Artificial Intelligence' mere synonyms, or are they 'RTs', and if so, does the relationship need qualifying?
                                             
                                            Regards,
                                             
                                            Bob
                                             
                                              >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<
                                            >>Principal
                                            Associate<<
                                            >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                                             
                                            >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Leonard Will
                                            Sent: 19 July 2006 16:39
                                            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: [TaxoCoP] Hierarchical relationships [Was visualization technologies]

                                            In message <NDEFLGFFOLCGIGCFNPJ KCEGLDBAA. bbater@infoplex- uk.com> on Tue,
                                            18 Jul 2006, Bob Bater <bbater@infoplex- uk.com> wrote
                                            >I can accept that some hierarchies demand or imply inherited
                                            >attributes. But as I suggested in my preceding posting, some
                                            >hierarchies don't (escalators) . I would be very interested to hear from
                                            >anyone on this list who has encountered this issue and has managed to
                                            >make some sense of it. In the meantime, I shall leave the question open
                                            >and assume that some hierarchical relationships require inheritance,
                                            >and some don't. It would be useful to have a way of indicating, through
                                            >relationship naming conventions, whether a hierarchy implied or
                                            >discounted inheritance.

                                            The trouble with the things that are popularly called "taxonomies" is
                                            that they generally obscure or mix up the basis on which their
                                            hierarchies are constructed. I therefore prefer to talk about two
                                            better-defined structures: the thesaurus and the faceted classification
                                            scheme. "Taxonomies" often adopt some of the principles of these, though
                                            in an unsystematic way.

                                            1. Thesaurus
                                            In a thesaurus, hierarchies are built on the types you relationship you
                                            mentions previously: generic, partitive and instantial. These
                                            relationships apply only between concepts within the same fundamental
                                            facet or category, such as objects, people, activities, abstract
                                            concepts, places, and so on. When the relationship is generic or
                                            instantial, inheritance applies: the narrower concept inherits all the
                                            properties of the broader concept.

                                            The partitive, or part/whole relationship is restricted to a few special
                                            cases, such as parts of the body, disciplines, geographical areas and
                                            the structures of social organisations such as military units. It is
                                            dangerously misleading to define handrails or steps as parts of
                                            escalators, because there are many handrails and steps which are not
                                            parts of escalators. When dealing with objects I generally find it
                                            preferable to use a structure such as the following:

                                            escalators and escalator components
                                            - escalator components
                                            - escalators
                                            - - aluminium escalators
                                            - - wooden escalators
                                            etc.

                                            The term "escalator components" can then be assigned to documents in
                                            addition to the general component term such as "handrails", "steps" or
                                            "motors". The British Standard for thesaurus construction,
                                            BS8723-2:2005, para. 7.3.3 d), advises that a "complex concept should
                                            usually be split if the term's focus represents a properly, part or
                                            component of the difference", so it is better not to use terms such as
                                            "escalator handrails", "escalator motors" and so on.

                                            A thesaurus built in this way is appropriate for post-coordinate
                                            searching, where concepts are combined in a search statement such as

                                            "handrails AND escalator components".

                                            2. Faceted classification
                                            Concepts in a classification scheme are typically "pre-coordinated" , so
                                            that compound concepts are built at the time of indexing rather than at
                                            the time of searching.

                                            In that case concepts from different facets can be arranged one below
                                            the other in a kind of hierarchy, but in which the relationships are not
                                            the same as the thesaurus BT/NT relationships. It is best if node labels
                                            are included explicitly in a display to show where facets change, for
                                            example:

                                            <objects>
                                            bicycles
                                            mountain bicycles
                                            <activities>
                                            manufacture
                                            repairing
                                            <parts>
                                            wheels
                                            racing bicycles
                                            <activities>
                                            manufacture
                                            racing
                                            road racing
                                            <people>
                                            cyclists
                                            repairing
                                            <people>
                                            cycle mechanics
                                            <parts>
                                            pedals
                                            wheels

                                            Here node labels containing facet names have been shown in angle
                                            brackets. These are not classes to which documents would be assigned,
                                            but just show how the structure has been constructed.

                                            In this structure, there are some hierarchical relationships, where (a)
                                            "bicycles" is a broader term of "mountain bicycles" and "racing
                                            bicycles", and (b) "road racing" is a narrower term of "racing". In each
                                            case the concepts in these relationships belong to the same facet, of
                                            "objects" in the first case and "activities" in the second.

                                            When a change of facet occurs, the relationship is not one of
                                            subordination but of coordination. The two occurrences of "manufacture" ,
                                            for example, are interpreted as labelling the compound concepts

                                            mountain bicycles : manufacture
                                            racing bicycles : manufacture

                                            the occurrence of "cyclists" here represents the compound concept

                                            racing bicycles : road racing : cyclists

                                            and the two occurrences of "wheels" represent the concepts

                                            mountain bicycles : wheels
                                            bicycles : wheels

                                            The concepts of "manufacture" , "cyclists" and "wheels" could occur in
                                            many other contexts in the classification. They might also occur in
                                            their own right, uncombined, for general treatments of these topics. To
                                            identify these compound concepts we can either use a string of terms,
                                            linked by symbols such as colons as I have done above, or a symbolic
                                            notation which may be more concise and which may use distinct symbols to
                                            show which facets are being combined, as is done in the UDC [Universal
                                            Decimal Classification] . A symbolic notation is not essential for a
                                            classification scheme, and in schemes called "taxonomies" it is often
                                            dispensed with, the strings of terms being used instead.

                                            In records management, facets are often combined in the order
                                            <functions> : <activities> : <topics/transaction s/tasks>. This sequence
                                            has been found appropriate for this application, but different
                                            sequences, or "citation orders", may be appropriate for other types of
                                            classification. For example, the Classification Research Group suggest
                                            that the following order will often be the best, particularly for
                                            technical subjects:

                                            thing - kind - part - property - material - process - operation- patient
                                            (i.e. system operated on) - product - by-product - agent - space - time

                                            As this is normally applied within a specific discipline, we can think
                                            of the "discipline" , "subject area" or "function" facet as preceding
                                            this list.

                                            I'm sorry that this message has turned out rather long, but Bob did ask
                                            for a fuller discussion! I hope that this is of some help, and would be
                                            interested to know whether other people agree with my interpretation.

                                            Leonard Will
                                            --
                                            Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                                            Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                                            27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
                                            L.Will@Willpowerinf o.co.uk Sheena.Will@ Willpowerinfo. co.uk
                                            ------------ ---- <URL:http://www.willpowe rinfo.co. uk/> ------------ -----

                                          • Leonard Will
                                            In message on Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Bob Bater wrote ... There are lots of different
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Jul 20, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In message <NDEFLGFFOLCGIGCFNPJKCEHBDBAA.bbater@...> on Thu,
                                              20 Jul 2006, Bob Bater <bbater@...> wrote
                                              >As I mentioned in a preceding post, I am still very interested in
                                              >exploring Roy Roebuck's seven 'relation types' when I have a bit more
                                              >time, because I have been involved in thesaurus projects which required
                                              >qualified 'RT' relationships. When Roy mentions OMG's MDA, it seems to
                                              >me that we are witnessing a degree of convergence between conventional
                                              >practices in information science and practices which have evolved from
                                              >Knowledge Engineering (erstwhile 'Artificial Intelligence'). I am bound
                                              >to wonder if you have any views on qualified relationships, RT, NT or
                                              >otherwise?

                                              There are lots of different types of relationship that you could use,
                                              and indeed lots of different types of entity or concept that can be
                                              linked by these relationships.

                                              For example, the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) "provides
                                              definitions and a formal structure for describing the implicit and
                                              explicit concepts and relationships used in cultural heritage
                                              documentation". <http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/index.html>. This is
                                              currently in the final stage of the ISO process as ISO/PRF 21127.

                                              This defines 84 entity types (classes) and 141 "property declarations",
                                              most of which are types of relationship between two entities.

                                              The issue that arises with such elaboration is "what are you going to do
                                              with it?" Given the fairly rudimentary nature of most search
                                              interfaces, which do not really lead users to use the full power of
                                              underlying thesaurus and classification structures, it is unlikely that
                                              anything more complex would be useful if presented at the user level.

                                              By reducing thesaurus relationships to the basic three (USE/UF, BT/NT,
                                              RT/RT) we not only simplify the interface but also rely on the fact that
                                              a human user can perceive the nature of the relationship by looking at
                                              the terms. If we have "shoes RT shoemakers", the relationship is clear
                                              to a human without having to replace RT by some more specific type such
                                              as "product / maker".

                                              We have to specify the relationships more explicitly if reasoning is to
                                              be done by machines rather than by humans, and then we need an ontology
                                              such as the CIDOC CRM. I don't think that many of us have software that
                                              can do anything useful with such structures . . . yet.

                                              >Come to think of it, that's an interesting case-in-point. Are
                                              >'Knowledge Engineering' and 'Artificial Intelligence' mere synonyms, or
                                              >are they 'RTs', and if so, does the relationship need qualifying?

                                              If you write scope notes to define what you mean by these terms, then
                                              I'll tell you what the relationship is! (Though once you've done that
                                              you will probably see the relationship for yourself). This is actually a
                                              general problem in constructing a controlled vocabulary - people argue
                                              for ages about the relationship between terms, because they use these
                                              terms to label ill-defined concepts. In a controlled vocabulary we
                                              artificially restrict the meaning of a term to label a single,
                                              well-defined concept, even though it may be used for many wider and
                                              loosely-defined ideas in general speech.

                                              Leonard
                                              --
                                              Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                                              Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                                              27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
                                              L.Will@... Sheena.Will@...
                                              ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
                                            • Amanda Xu
                                              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
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Jul 20, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                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
                                                from them.

                                                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!


                                                Amanda Xu




                                                --- Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@...> wrote:

                                                > 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
                                                > <blocked::http://www.commitent.com>
                                                >
                                                > Roy Roebuck III
                                                > Senior Enterprise Architect
                                                >
                                                > 2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                                                > Arlingon, VA
                                                >
                                                <blocked::http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&addr=2231+Crystal+Drive,+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=2046596413>
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ________________________________
                                                >
                                                > 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,
                                                > etc.
                                                >
                                                > 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.
                                                >
                                                > Cheers,
                                                >
                                                > Amanda Xu
                                                >
                                                > --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                                > <mailto:TaxoCoP%40yahoogroups.com> , "Roy Roebuck"
                                                > <Roy.Roebuck@...>
                                                > wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > I've used TheBrain for several projects since its
                                                > first beta
                                                > release,
                                                > > 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
                                                > inheritable
                                                > > attributes) of content, which are fundamental to
                                                > taxonomies and
                                                > > ontologies.
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb
                                                > phrases) into one
                                                > of
                                                > > seven "Relation Types": categorization,
                                                > containment, sequence,
                                                >
                                                === message truncated ===


                                                Amanda Xu
                                                58-11 197th St.
                                                Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
                                                718-990-6716 (voice)
                                                axu789@... (email)










                                                __________________________________________________
                                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                http://mail.yahoo.com
                                              • Roy Roebuck
                                                Hi Amanda: 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
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Jul 20, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment

                                                  Hi Amanda:

                                                   

                                                  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.

                                                   

                                                  Roy

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                    

                                                  CommIT Enterprises, Inc.

                                                  Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and Knowledge

                                                  Roy Roebuck III
                                                  Senior Enterprise Architect

                                                  2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                                                  Arlingon, VA
                                                  22202

                                                  roy.roebuck@...

                                                  mobile:
                                                  fax:  
                                                  direct:

                                                  +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 Amanda Xu
                                                  Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:08 PM
                                                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                                  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
                                                  from them.

                                                  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!

                                                  Amanda Xu


                                                  --- Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@ commitent. com> wrote:

                                                  > 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
                                                  w:st="on"> Enterprise Management,
                                                  > Security, and Knowledge
                                                  > <blocked::http://www.commiten t.com>
                                                  >
                                                  > Roy Roebuck III
                                                  > Senior Enterprise
                                                  Architect
                                                  >
                                                  > 2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                                                  > Arlingon ,
                                                  w:st="on">VA
                                                  >
                                                  <blocked::http://maps. yahoo.com/ py/maps.py? Pyt=Tmap& addr=2231+ Crystal+Drive, +Ste+501& csz=Arlingon, +VA&country= us>
                                                  > 22202
                                                  >
                                                  > roy.roebuck@ commitent. com
                                                  > <BLOCKED::mailto:roy.roebuck@ commitent. com>
                                                  >
                                                  > 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=2046596413>
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ____________ _________ _________ __
                                                  >
                                                  > 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,
                                                  > etc.
                                                  >
                                                  > 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.
                                                  >
                                                  > Cheers,
                                                  >
                                                  > Amanda Xu
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                                  > <mailto:TaxoCoP% 40yahoogroups. com> , "
                                                  w:st="on">Roy Roebuck "
                                                  > <Roy.Roebuck@ ...>
                                                  > wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I've used TheBrain for several projects since its
                                                  > first beta
                                                  > release,
                                                  > > 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
                                                  > inheritable
                                                  > > attributes) of content, which are fundamental to
                                                  > taxonomies and
                                                  > > ontologies.
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I typically categorize relationships (i.e., verb
                                                  > phrases) into one
                                                  > of
                                                  > > seven "Relation Types": categorization,
                                                  > containment, sequence,
                                                  >
                                                  === message truncated ===

                                                  Amanda Xu
                                                  58-11 197th St .
                                                  Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
                                                  718-990-6716 (voice)
                                                  axu789@yahoo. com (email)


                                                  ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                  http://mail. yahoo.com

                                                • Amanda Xu
                                                  ... AX: Thanks for the info! I did talk to them back in April with my partial conceptual model diagram for a project. But I kept it on hold as there are
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Jul 24, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@...> wrote:
                                                    >... 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.

                                                    AX: Thanks for the info! I did talk to them back in
                                                    April with my partial conceptual model diagram for a
                                                    project. But I kept it on hold as there are still so
                                                    many unknown variables and dependences, etc.

                                                    >
                                                    > 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.

                                                    AX: My experience has been limited to demos on EA
                                                    modeling tools such as Agilense, Telelogic, iRise,
                                                    etc. that handle EA frameworks such as Zachman, FEA,
                                                    DoDAF, TOGAF, etc., for BPM, SOA, etc. All of these
                                                    tools and frame works can only handle hard facts or
                                                    evidences at M3/M2/M1/M0 layers.

                                                    What's missing is the top layer of an EA info ecology,
                                                    e.g. people's background, culture, social networks,
                                                    working habit, organization policies, regulatory and
                                                    other constraints, etc. which will govern your EA
                                                    implementation strategies and your potential success
                                                    and risk ratios.

                                                    > 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.
                                                    >

                                                    AX: Excellent in terms of EA info architecture.
                                                    However, my challenge is not "techie" orientation.
                                                    How to obtain mission critical data from
                                                    upper/mid-level functional managers so that incoming
                                                    data can get into the 'axle' repository in a rubust
                                                    manner has proved to be more difficult than anything
                                                    else.

                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > 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.
                                                    >
                                                    AX: Thanks for the info about your approach. Do you
                                                    have systems in place to promote mechanism for
                                                    community/domain consensus building?

                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > 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.

                                                    AX: I understand.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > 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.
                                                    >

                                                    AX: Thanks for the link. Keep in touch!


                                                    Amanda Xu



                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Roy
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > CommIT Enterprises, Inc.
                                                    >
                                                    > Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management,
                                                    > Security, and Knowledge
                                                    > <blocked::http://www.commitent.com>
                                                    >
                                                    > Roy Roebuck III
                                                    > Senior Enterprise Architect
                                                    >
                                                    > 2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                                                    > Arlingon, VA
                                                    >
                                                    <blocked::http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&addr=2231+Crystal+Drive,+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=2046596413>
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ________________________________
                                                    >
                                                    > From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amanda
                                                    > Xu
                                                    > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:08 PM
                                                    > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > 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
                                                    > from them.
                                                    >
                                                    > 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!
                                                    >
                                                    > Amanda Xu
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > --- Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@...
                                                    > <mailto:Roy.Roebuck%40commitent.com> > wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > > 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.
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    === message truncated ===


                                                    __________________________________________________
                                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                                                  • Roy Roebuck
                                                    Hi Amanda: The social issues you bring up are at the heart of my approach to what others call EA (for IT, or little EA). I call it whole-endeavor management
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Jul 24, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment

                                                      Hi Amanda: 

                                                       

                                                      The social issues you bring up are at the heart of my approach to what others call EA (for IT, or little EA).  I call it whole-endeavor management (EM), using my design for the EA (big EA) repository to provide the underlying dynamic knowledge-base for EM.  I discovered and have been using this approach since 1982, built some limited-use EM tools in 1982-1983, first modeled it in 1984, first automated it in 1989, and have been extending and enhancing it since (it’s easier now with XML/XSD, RDF/RDFS and OWL/OWL-S and their underlying technologies).  I used an “information science” viewpoint for the whole thing.  I sometimes call it the “Manage anything and everything as One Thing” (MOT) approach, so it does tend to be flexible while technically, structurally, and procedurally consistent and highly scalable.  Until the market awareness grew up in the last couple of years around OWL, ontologies, taxonomies, controlled vocabularies, concept maps, and other semantic technologies, I quite literally couldn’t find anyone to talk to about this level of management capability – it just seemed too abstract for IT folks, their CIO’s, and their supported Managers/Executives/Chief-Executives.

                                                       

                                                      The other tools you site tend to be re-positioned software or system engineering tools with limited-utility and proprietary underlying object models (i.e., metaschema) so everything, to them at their lowest design level, typically looks like their view of a software application, as part of IT management.

                                                       

                                                      I use Agilense (and comparable tools) because it starts from a general-purpose “knowledge modeling and management” foundation, and then positions an IT EA modeling and management application (i.e., an ontology/metaschema) for the EA market.  It is quite capable of modeling and managing any aspect of the dynamic enterprise within its dynamic environment, to include perceptual, natural, social, functional, and technology elements.  It’s models and instance data can be changed as frequently, and almost as quickly, as do the relevant situations, sensors, data, information products, knowledge-driven (intuitive, fact, conjecture) perceptions, analysis, dependencies, decisions, and action-plans.

                                                       

                                                      Roy 

                                                       

                                                        

                                                      CommIT Enterprises, Inc.

                                                      Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and Knowledge

                                                      Roy Roebuck III
                                                      Senior Enterprise Architect

                                                      2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                                                      Arlingon, VA
                                                      22202

                                                      roy.roebuck@...

                                                      mobile:
                                                      fax:  
                                                      direct:

                                                      +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 Amanda Xu
                                                      Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:50 PM
                                                      To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Re: Visualization technologies

                                                       

                                                      --- Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@ commitment. com> wrote:

                                                      >... Contact steve@agilense. com
                                                      for further
                                                      > information. Pass him this email/thread if you
                                                      > like. Perhaps he has some online capability he can
                                                      > let you explore/evaluate.

                                                      AX: Thanks for the info! I did talk to them back in
                                                      April with my partial conceptual model diagram for a
                                                      project. But I kept it on hold as there are still so
                                                      many unknown variables and dependences, etc.

                                                      >
                                                      > 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.

                                                      AX: My experience has been limited to demos on EA
                                                      modeling tools such as Agilense, Telelogic, iRise,
                                                      etc. that handle EA frameworks such as Zachman, FEA,
                                                      DoDAF, TOGAF, etc., for BPM, SOA, etc. All of these
                                                      tools and frame works can only handle hard facts or
                                                      evidences at M3/M2/M1/M0 layers.

                                                      What's missing is the top layer of an EA info ecology,
                                                      e.g. people's background, culture, social networks,
                                                      working habit, organization policies, regulatory and
                                                      other constraints, etc. which will govern your EA
                                                      implementation strategies and your potential success
                                                      and risk ratios.

                                                      > 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.
                                                      >

                                                      AX: Excellent in terms of EA info architecture.
                                                      However, my challenge is not "techie" orientation.
                                                      How to obtain mission critical data from
                                                      upper/mid-level functional managers so that incoming
                                                      data can get into the 'axle' repository in a rubust
                                                      manner has proved to be more difficult than anything
                                                      else.

                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > 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.
                                                      >
                                                      AX: Thanks for the info about your approach. Do you
                                                      have systems in place to promote mechanism for
                                                      community/domain consensus building?

                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > 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.

                                                      AX: I understand.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > 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.
                                                      >

                                                      AX: Thanks for the link. Keep in touch!

                                                      Amanda Xu

                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > 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
                                                      Architect
                                                      >
                                                      > 2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
                                                      > Arlingon ,
                                                      w:st="on">VA
                                                      >
                                                      <blocked::http://maps. yahoo.com/ py/maps.py? Pyt=Tmap& addr=2231+ Crystal+Drive, +Ste+501& csz=Arlingon, +VA&country= us>
                                                      > 22202
                                                      >
                                                      > roy.roebuck@ commitent. com
                                                      > <BLOCKED::mailto:roy.roebuck@ commitent. com>
                                                      >
                                                      > 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=2046596413>
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > ____________ _________ _________ __
                                                      >
                                                      > From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                                      > [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com]
                                                      On Behalf Of Amanda
                                                      > Xu
                                                      > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:08 PM
                                                      > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                                      > 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
                                                      > from them.
                                                      >
                                                      > 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!
                                                      >
                                                      > Amanda Xu
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > --- Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@ commitent. com
                                                      > <mailto:Roy. Roebuck%40commit ent.com> > wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > > 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.
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      === message truncated ===

                                                      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                      http://mail. yahoo.com

                                                    • Bob Bater
                                                      BlankLeonard, Many thanks for your comments on qualified relationships. I would have responded sooner had I not been having connectivity problems and
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Jul 31, 2006
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Blank

                                                        Leonard,

                                                        Many thanks for your comments on qualified relationships. I would have responded sooner had I not been having connectivity problems and limitations here in Europe.

                                                        I accept entirely your rationale for "reducing thesaurus relationships to the basic three" in the context of  information retrieval. However, ever since I became acquainted with  knowledge management, I have had a bit of a  problem with the term 'information retrieval'. Unless I've got the etymology completely wrong, it means 'to find  again', implying that it is a process of getting back something you had formerly. It seems to leave out of account  the process of discovering something you hadn't had before and didn't know existed. I therefore like to distinguish between 'retrieval' and 'discovery', although both processes are important for learning and innovation.

                                                        When referring to the elaboration of relationships and entity types in the CIDOC CRM, you ask "what are you going to do with it?". I think it is in the process of discovery that qualified relationships can be useful. Although RTs in thesauri allow some escape from one hierarchical structure to another, it seems to me that one is still confined to a two-dimensional surface when effective exploration and discovery requires a three-dimensional space, which I believe the qualification of RTs provides.

                                                        I see the qualification of relationships in the vertical (intensive) dimension as supporting quite different outcomes from the qualification of relationships in the horizontal (extensive) dimension. Greater intensivity is useful for subject specialists in delving ever deeper into aspects of their specific domains, and it is largely this process that has produced the body of scientific knowledge from which modern society (sometimes arguably!) benefits today. But there are those who claim that in post-industrial society, innovation arises increasingly not from more intensive knowledge, but from more extensive knowledge, from the combination of insights from entirely different domains. One of the major themes of knowledge management is therefore to enable and support this serendipitous form of innovative discovery.

                                                        If this is the case, then the better we can express the totality of the known context of an entity or concept, then the greater the support we lend to the discovery process (and, incidentally, the discovery of hitherto unsuspected relationships). The qualification of horizontal relationships allows one to build a network of semantic relationships which provides a more realistic model of the world and helps explorers to move beyond the boundaries of a single discipline or focus and to make connections, build understanding and enhance learning.

                                                        I think there is a popular perception that innovation occurs solely within a single discipline, which has arisen from the practically-based but artificial distinctions among disciplines. Anyone who has studied physics and chemistry for example, is aware of how the two are inextricably interlinked. Yet we persist in treating and in teaching them as quite separate disciplines, even though most technological innovations in the last fifty years derive from a combination of the two. Silicon chips, for example, are the result of innovation in both physics and chemistry.

                                                        I agree that "We have to specify the relationships more explicitly if reasoning is to be done by machines rather than by humans" and I believe the imperative to utilize computers in doing some of our reasoning for us is what is driving the information science and AI/Knowledge Engineering communities to converge. I think one of the most flexible and sophisticated expressions of this convergence is the XTM Topic Maps standard, ISO 13250. Topic Maps provide not only for characterization of the relationships (it calls them 'Associations') among entities, but also for the definition of the role of each entity in the Association. I think the Topic Maps codification standard is what will allow us, at last, to enlist the true power of computer processing in extracting value from the glut of information which currently confronts us.

                                                        Hmmm. I think I'd better get down from my soapbox now, and give others a chance to comment :-)

                                                        Regards,

                                                        Bob

                                                          >>>>>Bob Bater<<<<<

                                                        >>Principal
                                                        Associate<<
                                                        >>InfoPlex Associates<<
                                                         
                                                        >>>>Bristol, UK<<<<

                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.