[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [soa-rm] RE: [ontolog-forum] RE: [soa-rm] latest Draft of Concept M

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <soa-rm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:39:53 -0800
Message-id: <63C6921B571CC740BF472C356B1291E4527C61@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Rex said: "I would actually prefer if concept maps stayed informal or
relatively informal for usefulness in my brainstorming process before
moving on to my personal process for noodling out constraints."    (01)

This has been identified as a problem since it leads to different people
interpreting things differently.
For example    (02)

"A uses B"    (03)

How would *you* answer the following:    (04)

1. Can A exist without B?
2. Is B aware of A?
3. Is A aware of B?
4. Is the reciprocal relationship "B is used by A" true?
5. Does B need at least one A to exists before it can exist?
6. Is B a complete concept without A?
7. Does A always use B?
8. add transitive, reflexive and all variants....
...    (05)

I have avoided use of cardinality but others think that cardinality
exists in concept maps.  Does this relationship mean exactly one A and
one B must be present for the concept to be complete or does it
represent multiples.  I have seen concept maps with plurality such as:    (06)

"machines are used by workers"    (07)

Why is workers plural?  Does it imply that there must be more than one
worker?    (08)

What about instance, parent relationships?
</Rant>    (09)

While you may answer these very clearly, the exact interpretation is not
ubiquitous and YAMMV.    (010)

Duane    (011)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (012)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>