[Moose-dev] Re: FCA and Moose

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