[Moose-dev] Re: FCA and Moose

In a moose model, you can have histories, files, entities associations among other things. Why not FCA concepts ? One advantage to have FCA concepts as a subclass of FAMIXEntity is to enable link between concepts and structural entities (everything in a same moose model) and benefit from all navigation tools. Cheers, Alexandre On 19 May 2009, at 13:42, Simon Denier wrote: > Hi Gabriela > > I would suggest going the Mondrian way, that is creating an > independent, scriptable framework for formal concept analysis, > which could then easily be plugged into Moose. This way you dont > care if we break something here, and we still benefit from FCA > on a case-by-case basis. > Of course designing a good API is hard but in the end, it is > much more valuable (because it gives a stable vocabulary in a > unique location) and much easier to maintain than a mix of > extensions interweaved in the system for tight integration. Doru > did an excellent job with Mondrian, we should draw inspiration > from that. > > What are the advantages of subclassing FamixEntity for a formal > concept? Meta description for browsing and persistence? It is > not necessary as we use pragmas to metadescribe. > > > On 19 mai 09, at 11:25, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > >> Ok, it makes sense. I just loaded the last version of ConAn, >> but some error popped up. What is the status ? Where you happy >> about the implementation? >> I can port SCG-Algorithm to Pharo, this shouldn't be a problem >> since I am experienced in this kind of porting. >> >> I suggest to use the Moose mailing list for FCA related >> discussion. >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> >> >> >> On 19 May 2009, at 05:13, Gabriela Arevalo wrote: >> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> In fact, this is because when I finished my phd, my prototype >>> was almost broken due to the continuous changes in moose. >>> So I decided that the next version of ConAn would be Moose >>> independent to avoid to suffer with Moose evolution and also >>> to be able to work with any domain (not necessary related to >>> Moose). The implementation you have seen is something I >>> started last year recovering my code from my prototype in >>> Store in Bern. >>> I know the advantages of FAMIXEntity, but it was a nightmare >>> to repair ConAn in the times that Moose changes a lot. >>> >>> Anyway, and considering that moose seems to be stable, I think >>> that we can make it a subclass of that class. I should think >>> about it. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> gabi >>> >>> PS: When are you moving to Chile? >>>> Hi Gabriela, >>>> >>>> I was wondering why your implementation of FCA isn't >>>> implemented as an extension of FAMIX. Even if FCA has little >>>> to do with Structural entities in OO languages, FAMIXEntity >>>> could be inherited. For example, why FormalConcept is not a >>>> subclass of it? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Alexandre >>> >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> > > -- > Simon > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev