Hi all,

Last week I ported a version of an FCA engine that we had lying around in VisualWorks (originally implemented by Fred Spiessens) to Pharo.
http://www.squeaksource.com/FCA.html
I haven't fully tested it, but I guess Alex already is trying it out.
While we experienced it as being quite fast, I can't tell how it compares to the versions you have lying around.

Cheers,

Andy

On 20 May 2009, at 08:52, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

Gabi

I know that adrian kuhn implemented also an FCA engine in VW probably in the SCG algo package.
If you need help to migrate from VW to pharo please let us know.

Stef

On May 20, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Gabriela Arevalo wrote:

Hi Doru,

What you propose seems to be reasonable for me. I added in this discussion Diego Kogan because he is trying to help me in recovering all my tools related to FCA.
One problem that I have here is that if I want to load Moose in a VW, it is extremely low.
I tried to replicate here some versions of Moose when I was trying to recover all my FCA stuff that I had implemented, and so far this was a solution.
But maybe you can help us telling me if there is a way to speed up the connection with Store in Bern from my university.

Cheers,

Gabi
The algorithm should have nothing to do with Moose, but instead it should work at the level of regular Smalltalk objects, just like Simon suggested. In this way you can use it in various contexts. This is what SCG Algorithms does.

Of course, when you have a specific type of concept (like a design pattern or something) that should be a subclass of MooseEntity and can be linked with various FAMIX entities.

Cheers,
Doru


On 19 May 2009, at 13:51, Alexandre Bergel wrote:

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@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev


--
Simon



_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.





_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Yesterday is a fact.
Tomorrow is a possibility.
Today is a challenge."



_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev