Parts and Assemblies

This is another way of looking at the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor:

frameworkcollectionobject.jpg

I’m looking for a good name for this matrix.  Right now I call these “parts and assemblies” and show their relationships: extra (outside), inter (between) and intra (within). We can look at these in respect to the Zachman Framework

zachmanframeworkabstract.jpg

We can also look at the frameworks in the previous post and discover more traits of our frameworks.

Here’s a new table format I am experimenting with:

hatscoatsmaslow.jpg

Hope you like it.

The Six Hats, Six Coats Rack

Now that we have been exploring the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor, I want to bring back the Zachman Framework as an abstract.

zachmanframeworkabstract.jpg

The term “relations” is equivalent to “tables”. “Associations” is equivalent to “rows”. “Attributes” is equivalent to columns. “Domains” is equivalent to “valid values”. “Definitions” is equivalent to “affordances”. “Manipulations” is equivalent to “transactions”.

You can see when we abstract in this way the correlation with the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor is complete.

stl03.jpg

So why create the two models? I created the Six Hats, Six Coats model to have a neutral workspace to reveal how many other hexads exist and correlate. We have seen how Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,

  maslowframework.jpg

and McLuhan’s Tetrads

mcluhanframework01.jpg

can all be extended to fit onto this framework. And I will continue to incorporate more elements as they present themselves.

Cycorp

I came across the site of Cycorp today. It has a batch of very interesting videos.

“Cycorp is a leading provider of semantic technologies that bring a new level of intelligence and common sense reasoning to a wide variety of software applications. The Cyc® software combines an unparalleled common sense ontology and knowledge base with a powerful reasoning engine and natural language interfaces to enable the development of novel knowledge-intensive applications.”

“The Cyc Knowledge Server is a very large, multi-contextual knowledge base and inference engine developed by Cycorp. Cycorp’s goal is to break the “software brittleness bottleneck” once and for all by constructing a foundation of basic “common sense” knowledge–a semantic substratum of terms, rules, and relations–that will enable a variety of knowledge-intensive products and services. Cyc is intended to provide a “deep” layer of understanding that can be used by other programs to make them more flexible.”

“The development of Cyc was a very long-term, high-risk gamble that has begun to pay off. Begun as a research project in 1984, Cyc is now a working technology with applications to many real-world business problems. Cyc’s vast knowledge base enables it to perform well at tasks that are beyond the capabilities of other software technologies.”

“The vast breadth of Cyc knowledge is now available to you as a series of domain-focused structured information products. Select from a library of pre-defined, interoperable domain taxonomies or let us provide custom-developed taxonomies or ontologies to meet your specific needs.”

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

Trouble? Change Hats

I’ve just finished reading “Why Wait for Trouble?” by Kenneth W. Freeman in Strategy and Business. Kenneth described a five stage condition model of a company.

  1. Bleeding
  2. Stability
  3. Gradual Improvement
  4. Rapid Improvement
  5. Arrogance

The danger Kenneth described was remaining in any of these stages too long. I agree, but you probably guessed that I disagree that there are five stages. I believe there are six stages and there are symptoms of remaining in them too long. Again I am referring to my Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor.

  1. Blue Hat: Synchronization Failure. You are not performing transactions at the optimal rate. Bleeding.
  2. Red Hat: Personalization Failure. You are not addressing employee/customer needs. Over Stability.
  3. Black Hat: Physicalization Failure. You are not minimizing cost. Overly Gradual Improvement.
  4. White Hat: Logicalization Failure. You are not maximizing value. Overly Rapid Improvement.
  5. Yellow Hat: Contextual Failure. You are not maintaining uniqueness. Arrogance.
  6. Green Hat: Conceptual Failure. You are not revising your vision. Dictating.

These are the symptoms of wearing any of the Six Hats too long. You can also wear any of the Six Coats too long, but that remains for another post.

SQL Authority

I have been following the blog of SQL Authority, Pinal Dave, since I came to discover WordPress.

Pinal’s focus on and dedication to his work comes through in his content. Although his specialty is SQLServer and I am a born and bred Oracle specialist, I often find Pinal has general concepts that benefit anyone who is working with SQL based databases.

Right now Pinal is writing posts on Data Warehousing Interview Questions. The scope and brevity of his definitions are perfect for anyone wanting to condense their thinking about the broad range of data warehousing terminology.

Visit and subscribe to SQL Authority. It will be worth your while.

relationary sql authority relationary sql authority relationary sql authority

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

STL: Structured Thinking Language (remix)

It’s been a short time coming, but I have hammered out another iteration of the vocabulary for the Structured Thinking Language (STL).

stl03.jpg

REVISE: Conceptualize. Expand Meaning. What are you enhancing or making right? Creativity.

RELATE: Contextualize. Focus on Uniqueness. What is your mantra? Relativity.

REPORT: Logicalize. Maximize Value. What are you normalizing to the limit? Optimicity.

RECORD: Physicalize. Minimize Cost. What is your business model? Pessimicity.

REFINE: Personalize. Humanize Interaction. How do you lower the barriers to adoption? Anthropicity.

REPEAT: Synchronize. Increase Availability. How do you make yourself convenient? Synchronicity.

MOTIVE: Why? Concepts affected.

LOCALE: Where? Contexts affected.

OBJECT: What? Logics affected.

METHOD: How? Physics affected.

PERSON: Who? Humans affected.

MOMENT: When? Synchrons affected.

From here on in there are only six verbs, irregardless of whether you are Inducting (Analyzing) or Deducting (Designing) or (something new) Producting (Developing) or Conducting (Operating). It is the order in which you are performing the verbs which is important.

lifecycle.jpg

I love this. I’m going to invent more words than Shakespeare.

stl structured thinking language remix stl structured thinking language remix stl structured thinking language remix

Objects, Objects, Objects

I’ve had a bit of an epiphany today as I was thinking about the Structured Thinking Language. It has to do with the process of creating databases, but is transferable to each of the focuses of the model.

The steps to designing a database are:

1. Conceptual Design
2. Contextual Design
3. Logical Design
4. Physical Design
5. Personal Design
6. Synchronal Design

First is the conceptual design of a object. This is the object motive or primary key attribution.

Second is the contextual design. This is the object location or foreign key attribution.

Third is the logical design. This is the object formation or non-key attribution.

Fourth is the physical design. This is the object function or domain attribution.

Fifth is the personal design. This is the object personation or ownership attribution.

Sixth is the synchronal design. This is the object momentation or datetime attribution.

A table is a collection objects with the same motive. A row is a collection of objects with the same location. A column is a collection of objects with the same formation. A domain is a collection of objects with the same function. A privilege is a collection of objects with the same personation. A schedule is a collection of objects with the same momentation.

A table is an object. A row is an object. A column is an object. A domain is an object. A privilege is an object. A schedule is an object. And they are all attributes of a datum object.

The same goes for each of the focuses.

It looks like I will be reviewing the naming of my STL verbs and nouns again.