Re: [ontolog-forum] Model Semantics, Representation Syntax, and Systems

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

Andre..

I agree with your comment, thanks. 

Dr. Sowa and Andre:  The  correct question to ask  are:

 What features of 3D can UML handle and what needs to be supported yet?

What does 4D represent?   What features should a specification language incorporate to support 4D?

Can UML handle 4D?

 ( Considering the fact that UML was developed to support Object Oriented Analysis and Design..  which is more 2D and 3D..)

At this point, I am quite convinced that people use the term 4D in all sorts of way..  Phylosophers  call it the representation of  cosmos...  programmers call it a pointer  that traverses through x,y,z and  time axis ..   what ever.. !!  etc.. etc..

Thanks
Pavithra







--- On Fri, 11/19/10, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Model Semantics, Representation Syntax, and Systems Integration
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "architecture-ecosystem@xxxxxxx" <architecture-ecosystem@xxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 7:29 AM

Andre,

I agree with your points, but I'd like to add some qualifications:

> ... system modeling, with infinitely variable viewpoints,
> 3D, 2D plane mapping, animation, color, sound, and hypergrid...
> but unfortunately, UML, BPMN, SysML, and other OMG languages
> and notations are not well adapted.

Yes, but this gets back to my point about methodologies.  There is
no reason why diagrams such as UML can't be used in such dynamic,
"infinitely variable viewpoints."  It's the methodologies that
create the "silos" that limit their flexibility.  We need to have
methodologies, but we need to relate them all to one another.

> UML improvement and fixing should be the focus of another SIG,
> as although they may be required and very good things, they are
> clearly not leading to an integrated architecture ecosystem,
> anytime in a foreseeable future.

Of course not.  They are notations, which can be used in many
different ways.  The methodologies determine how they are used.
For people with silo mentalities and methodologies, the whole
world is a silo, no matter what notations they use.

> UML, BPMN, SysML and other OMG languages and notations can bring
> a lot to an effective architecture ecosystem, but not their
> silo infrastructure design.

Agreed.  The silo infrastructure is not a methodology, but it was
designed with a silo mentality to support one specific methodology.

When people see Common Logic, they can't see any silos of any kind.
Therefore, they think it is irrelevant to their silo.

But the point I keep emphasizing is that if you want to support
*everything* you have to get outside the silos to find a foundation
that can relate and integrate everything.

People with silo mentalities keep asking for "a software stack"
and my answer is that Common Logic supports every software stack
that has ever been implemented.  It provides the foundation for
*all* of them.

John

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)