20 May
2009
20 May
'09
5:26 a.m.
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:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Yesterday is a fact.
Tomorrow is a possibility.
Today is a challenge."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev 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:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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 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