19 May
2009
19 May
'09
1:42 p.m.
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:
--
Simon
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?
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
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