Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Common business entity model

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Hi Marc,

> YES! And this mapping should grow. I saw already some more
> similarities between eDialogos and CBEM. Unfortunately I don't know
> 'Outcast', but maybe that's Votorolas data schema?

Yes, sort of.  It's the broader architecture in which Votorola is an
optional component, or "plug-in".

> So let's see how far can we push this approach!
> 
> What do you think?

I think it's possible to go very far indeed.  But I wonder if there's
a place in it for the particular kind of technology I work on, and the
personal concerns that I have?  Those are the questions I ask in the
other thread.  Because if there *is* a place, then I would definitely
be willing to shoulder my share of the workload.  :-)

Michael


marc said:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I like the way you break things down!
> 
> Michael Allan wrote:
> >Marc said:
> >> That's true. But IMHO if a Group is composed of 2..* Participants,
> >> that doesn't mean a Participant can't be member of several
> >> Groups. So maybe we need a * multiplicity at the Groups side?
> 
> >Or maybe an open diamond symbol (aggregate).  I think filled diamond
> >(composite) implies a single group.
> 
> Ok. A Group could be seen as an aggregate of Participants. For me an 
> *aggregate* is a HAS relation while a *composite* is a CONSISTS OF 
> relation. 
> So with an composite one could argue that the Participant is dispersed in 
> the Group.
> 
> >George said:
> >> So, a couple of simple domain models for argumentative discussions
> >> and consensus already exist:
> >> 1. A consensus ontology, based on IBIS, problem marketplaces and
> >> idea management:
> >> http://www.imc.com.gr/ontologies/eDialogos/consensus/
> 
> >http://www.imc.com.gr/ontologies/eDialogos/consensus/img/class_diagram_v0.1.png
> >I was looking at the core relations (eDialogos below).  I think I can
> >map them to the terminology we use (in Outcast) and also AG Meinungs-
> >findungstool (CBEM/AG):
> 
> >                  has                has
> >  IdeaContest  <-------  Idea  ----------->  User          (eDialogos)
> >
> >         Poll  <-------  Position  ------->  Person        (Outcast)
> >
> >        Topic  <-------  Opinion  -------->  Participant   (CBEM/AG)
> 
> >Maybe this can be our Rosetta stone for the rest of the world. :-)
> 
> YES! And this mapping should grow. I saw already some more similarities 
> between eDialogos and CBEM. Unfortunately I don't know 'Outcast', but maybe 
> that's Votorolas data schema?
> 
> Maybe we can try to reach the following target: Reaching consensus about a 
> 'Common eDecision-Making Standard'
> 
> This may consist of
> 
> 1) A Common Domain Model (NOT a database schema); this are entities to be 
> common to all tools / systems
> 
> 2) A Common  Use Case Model; this are processes / workflows / actions to be 
> common to all tools / systems
> This could look like the following - just a first draft and unfortunately 
> in 
> german language again:
> http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/wiki/images/e/ed/QKonsens-Anwendungsf%C3%A4lle-v01.jpg
> 
> 
> So let's see how far can we push this approach!
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers
> marc