Systema Framework: Structured Thinking Advances

Forget Microsoft. Forget Apple. Let’s break the rules and create something truly beautiful.

This is the new Systema Framework. Let’s look at definitions for each of the icons. I want you to note that putting this together even close to coherently is taking considerable time and I will be revising this post repeatedly.

Things I’ve learned:

  • I am abandoning the term entity for the term logos which is closer to the correct concept we are dealing with.  Logic deals with the logos (words) of reason versus the forms (things) of reality.
  • I have found that de Bono lead me to realize that a relationship or association is not the correct term for these connections. The correct term is “directive” because the connector has a source.verb.target structure. Sun Tzu would call it a command. Ultimately, all people are directors not actors.
  • The real genius of Zachman was creating a two dimensional framework where all his predecessors had only provided one dimension.
  • “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Reaction is induction. Action is deduction. Thus a bottom up inductive process involves:
    • Reintuition, Renegation, Reobjection, Reposition, Redirection and Recreation
  • While a top down deductive process involves:
    • Creation, Direction, Position, Objection, Negation and Intuition
  • The finer points can be debated.
  • I find the relational model is not best adapted to this framework. The associative model of data found at LazySoft is better equipped to meet the framework’s requirements.

Systema Framework Terms

Systema Framework Icons

Icon Definitions

CREATIVE Logic Logics

CREATIVE are the logic logos in your system. These are the logos you will use to explain your motives. Another way to look at it is using Edward de Bono’s hats in two dimensions: Creative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Moral Law.

DIRECTIVE Logic Organics

DIRECTIVE are the logic directions in your system.  Reason directions are mandatory or optional; single, multiple or plural and cursive or recursive.  They connect source reason logos and target reason logos. In de Bono hats Creative directions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Command.

POSITIVE Logic Methodics

POSITIVE are logic methods in your system. Reason methods are mandatory or optional; single, multiple or plural and cursive or recursive. Ultimately the reason methods act on the reason forms. In de Bono hats Creative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Training.

OBJECTIVE Logic Pragmatics

OBJECTIVE deals with the logic forms you add to the system. In de Bono hats Creative objections. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Discipline.

NEGATIVE Logic Cosmics

NEGATIVE is the logic universe of your system. The reason nouns, reason verbs, reason methods and reason forms have been created and are an existing part of your system. In de Bono’s hats Creative Negations. Note that it is called a negative because a cosmos can only falsify a system otherwise it simply corroborates. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Terrain.

INTUITIVE Logic Chronics

INTUITIVE are the logic triggers applied to the reason universe of your system. Changes to reason forms are reason triggers. In de Bono hats Creative intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Heavens.

CREATOR Organic Logics

CREATOR are the director logos (plant, animal, person) in your system. In de Bono hats Directive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Moral Law.

DIRECTOR Organic Organics

DIRECTOR are the director directions between director logos. In de Bono hats Directive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Command.

POSITOR Organic Methodics

POSITOR are the director methods applied to director forms. In de Bono hats Directive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Training.

OBJECTOR Organic Pragmatics

OBJECTOR are the director forms. In de Bono hats Directive objections. In Sun Tzu factors Command Discipline.

NEGATOR Organic Cosmics

NEGATOR is the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Terrain.

INTUITOR Organic Chronics

INTUITOR are the director triggers applied to the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Heavens.

CREATE Methodic Logics

CREATE is the methodic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Positive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Moral Law.

DIRECT Methodic Organics

DIRECT is the methodic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Positive directions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Command.

POSIT Methodic Methodics

POSIT is the methodic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Training.

OBJECT Methodic Pragmatics

OBJECT is the methodic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Training Discipline.

NEGATE Methodic Cosmics

NEGATE is the methodic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Terrain.

INTUIT Methodic Chronics

INTUIT is the methodic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.

CREATION Pragmatic Logics

CREATION are the pragmatic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Moral Law.

DIRECTION Pragmatic Organics

DIRECTION are the pragmatic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Command.

POSITION Pragmatic Methodics

POSITION are the pragmatic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Training.

OBJECTION Pragmatic Pragmatics

OBJECTION are the pragmatic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Discipline.

NEGATION Pragmatic Cosmics

NEGATION are the pragmatic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Terrain.

INTUITION Pragmatic Chronics

INTUITION are the pragmatic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.

CREATORY Cosmic Logics

CREATORY are the universe logos of the system. In de Bono hats Negative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Moral Law.

DIRECTORY Cosmic Organics

DIRECTORY are the univserse directions of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Directives. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Command.

POSITORY Cosmic Methodics

POSITORY are the universe methods of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Training.

OBJECTORY Cosmic Pragmatics

OBJECTORY are the universe forms of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Discipline.

NEGATORY Cosmic Cosmics

NEGATORY are the universe universe of the system. In de Bonos hats Negative Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Terrain.

INTUITORY Cosmic Chronics

INTUITORY are the universe triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Heavens.

CREATUM Chronic Logics

CREATUM are the chronic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Moral Law.

DIRECTUM Chronic Organics

DIRECTUM are the chronic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Command.

POSITUM Chronic Methodics

POSITUM are the chronic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Training.

OBJECTUM Chronic Pragmatics

OBJECTUM are the chronic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Discipline.

NEGATUM Chronic Cosmics

NEGATUM are the chronic universe of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Terrain.

INTUITUM Chronic Chronics

INTUITUM are the chronic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Heavens.

Advertisements

SQL: Old Soldiers Never Die

Structured Query Language (SQL) has been a phenomenally useful language for the relational database era. But I see that era coming to a close.

One of the primary flaws is SQL allows for database Alters, Drops, Updates and Deletes. When diskspace was expensive this made perfect sense, but with the unlimited disk resources we have today a greater principle holds true: NO SCHEMA OR DATA SHOULD BE ALTERED, DROPPED, UPDATED OR DELETED.

A second flaw is the lack of interactive modification of the schema in real time. Changes still blow most applications all to hell.

A third flaw is supertype/subtype hierarchies. Such things should not be hard coded into a design.

That being the case SQL has four unnecessary statements just waiting to be abused. We need a better language. In fact, we need a better database architecture.

A new language would provide no means for updates or deletes. I created the first Releases of this language I called “Structured Thinking Language” (STL).

STL has the following commands:

  1. CREATE – affordance concept (creates entities)
  2. DIRECT – affordance context (relates entities)
  3. POSIT – affordance method (entity output)
  4. OBJECT – affordance pragma (entity input)
  5. NEGATE – affordance cosmos (entity security)
  6. INTUIT – affordance chronos (entity manipulation)

As you can see there are no means to delete data.

Each entity (noun) has only one “attribute” in the relational ERD sense and each entity value is unique.

Each relationship between entities is called an direction with a subject, verb and object.

What we are actually dealing with is a database that has data states. Data being no longer affected by Alters and Deletes are instead affected by change of state without physical alteration or deletion.

After looking at STL recently I realized I had created a command language for an existing database architecture: The Associative Model of Data by Simon Williams.

The Book on the Model and a free copy of the Enterprise Edition software is available here.

An old release of STL can be found here.

Six Hats, Six Coats: The Structured Thinking System

Thought I would take a moment to briefly review how far we have come.

First, we looked at a variety of tetrads.

Here is James Moffett’s Universe of Discourse:

We concluded that human systems are hexads and we arrived at the Six Hat, Six Coat Framework:

Next, we will look at the Entities, Relationships, Attributes and Constraints within the framework.

Defining the Six Hat, Six Coat Entities has been very much like defining a periodic table. I have had to suspend my own biases many times to align myself with the concepts the Cartesian product were revealing to me.

I have stated that the relationships between entities are one to many left to right and one to many top to bottom. John Zachman believes the structure is like a table with movable columns. I do not. I believe the framework and the entities are fixed in a hierarchy implicitly. However, explicit relationships can exist contrary to this fundamental structure.

We have also explored the attributes for each of the entities and their constraints/freedoms. I provided an alternate set of names: Morality (cause), Compatibility (observer), Reliability (energy), Fidelity (matter), Accessibility (space)  and Availability (time).

I will be coming back to the Structured Thinking Language and experiment further.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Stephen Pinker: The Stuff of Thought

stephen_pinker.jpg

I find this video from TED.com of Stephen Pinker to be an interesting discussion as I battle to find the most suitable terms for forming the Structured Thinking Language and Structured Thinking System.

Structured Thinking System: Relationships

In the last post, Structured Thinking System: Entities, I laid out the the thirty-six fundamental entities of the Structured Thinking System. In this post I will discuss the relationships between these entities.

sts-entities.jpg

The relationships in the Structured Thinking System are a recursive hierarchy both vertically and horizontally. What I mean by this is each column is a series of one to many relationships proceeding down the column and the bottom most entity has a one to many relationship to the top most entity in the column. The same applies to the rows. Each row is a series of one to many relationships proceeding from left to right across the row and the rightmost entity has a one to many relationship to the left most entity in the row. For example, in the Green Coat (motive) column one Verity has many Unities, one Unity has many Qualities, one Quality has many Quantities, one Quantity has many Safeties, one Safety has many Reliefs and one Relief has many Verities. In the same way, one Verity has many Creators, on Creator has many Motives, one Motive has many Creates, one Create has many Universes, one Universe has many Years and one Year has many Verities.

The reason for such a structure is due to the nature of “centrisism” in system design. Although the Structured Thinking System always starts with Verity as the central concept of the system’s design it is possible for other centrisms to exist. It is equally possible for a Leader centric design, an Object centric design or a Moment centric design. Note how the center can move not only horizontally, but vertically, however the direction of the one to many hierarchical relationships remain the same.

STL: Shakedown R0.4

structured-thinking

I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy
– but that could change.
Dan Quayle

I’ve been playing with writing STL code for a couple of days now and have been working out some major logical issues. Actually trying to write code instead of syntax that is logical has shaken down the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework considerably. Sort of like dismantling and rebuilding a Chevy and then taking it on its first drive through the neighborhood without a muffler.

One of the things I have discovered is that Structured Thinking Language is best for describing Structured Thinking Systems (The Six Hats, Six Coats Framework). So let’s take a look at what I found.

First, we will go over the revised verbs and nouns. Here are the Structured Thinking Verbs:

stl-verbs.jpg

  1. CREATE refers to the extistential. Capability. Right a wrong.
  2. RELATE refers to the unity. Portability. Have a mantra.
  3. REPORT refers to the benefit. Reliability. Unique and valuable.
  4. RECORD refers to the cost. Profitability. Have a business plan.
  5. AFFORD refers to the usability. Security. Easy to adopt.
  6. ENGAGE refers to the convenience. Availability. Spawn evangelists.

And Here are the Structured Thinking Nouns:

stl-nouns.jpg

  1. MOTIVE refers to the rule hierarchy. Moral Law.
  2. PERSON refers to the people hierarchy. Command.
  3. OBJECT refers to the data hierarchy. Discipline.
  4. METHOD refers to the function hierarchy. Training.
  5. LOCALE refers to to the node hierarchy. Terrain.
  6. MOMENT refers to the event hierarchy. Climate.

This gives us our Structured Thinking Framework:

structuredthinking02.jpg

What we have as a result is the meshing of six horizontal hierarchies and six vertical hierarchies.

Next, we create all of the entities. There are six entities per noun.

CREATE	CreateName
	MOTIVE	(	Virtue,
			Unity,
 			Esteem,
 			Accord,
 			Safety,
 			Entity
 		) 

 	PERSON	(	Creator,
			Leader,
			Patron,
			Member,
			Friend,
			Teller
 		) 

 	OBJECT	(	Motive,
 			Person,
 			Object,
 			Method,
 			Locale,
 			Moment
 		) 

 	METHOD	(	Create,
 			Relate,
 			Report,
 			Record,
 			Afford,
 			Engage
 		) 

 	LOCALE	(	ExtraNet,
 			InterNet,
 			IntraNet,
 			ExtraNode,
 			InterNode,
 			IntraNode
 		)
 	MOMENT	(	Year,
 			Month,
 			Day,
 			Hour,
 			Minute,
 			Second
 		);

Next we relate the entities to one another. The keys are surrogates, so they are not visible. I am building a set of relationships from left to right on each row and a set of relationships top to bottom on each column:

RELATE 	RelationshipName
 	(	MOTIVE.Virtue 	TO MOTIVE.Unity,
		MOTIVE.Unity	TO MOTIVE.Esteem,
 		MOTIVE.Esteem 	TO MOTIVE.Accord,
 		MOTIVE.Accord 	TO MOTIVE.Safety,
 		MOTIVE.Safety 	TO MOTIVE.Entity
		MOTIVE.Mantra 	TO PERSON.Creator,
 		PERSON.Creator  TO OBJECT.Motive,
 		OBJECT.Motive 	TO METHOD.Create,
 		METHOD.Create 	TO LOCALE.ExtraNet,
 		LOCALE.ExtraNet	TO MOMENT.Year
 		PERSON.Creator 	TO PERSON.Leader,
 		PERSON.Leader 	TO PERSON.Patron,
 		PERSON.Patron 	TO PERSON.Member,
 		PERSON.Member 	TO PERSON.Friend,
 		PERSON.Friend 	TO PERSON.Teller,
		MOTIVE.Unity 	TO PERSON.Leader,
 		PERSON.Leader	TO OBJECT.Person,
 		OBJECT.Person	TO METHOD.Relate,
 		METHOD.Relate	TO LOCALE.InterNet,
		...
 	);

This gives us the following entities composing our Structured Thinking System (STS):

stl-entities-03.jpg

As you can see, the order of the columns have been changed. You can also see that I have changed the color coding of the hats and coats to better reflect common usage in the industry (ie. Black Hat = Secure). I also think I am coming more into line with de Bono, but the jury is still out on that one.

Another issue raised in making the relationships is they are one to many as they proceed left to right across the rows and one to many as they proceed down the columns. There is no compromise to this if the system is to work at peak effectiveness.

There is no need for normalization or denormalization as the structure is fully normalized. There is also no need for attributes because they are identical for every entity:

  • Motive
  • Person
  • Object
  • Method
  • Locale
  • Moment

I am at a turning point here. I have to go deeper into the model to determine how to create attributes. Which I have not yet attempted. I have to save it for later posts.

Now we can create our reports. This is an alternate function of the six verbs that occurred to me. Note that the selected cells are all adjacent to one another either horizontally or vertically and flow from left to right; top to bottom:

REPORT	ReportName
 	(	MOTIVE.Esteem,
 		MOTIVE.Accord,
 		PERSON.Member,
 		OBJECT.Method,
 		METHOD.Record,
 		METHOD.Afford,
 		LOCALE.IntraNode,
 		MOMENT.Minute
 	);

Giving us the following Report:

If you want to throw in some filters it is easy:

REPORT	ReportName 

 	(	MOTIVE.Esteem,
 		MOTIVE.Accord,
 		PERSON.Member = John Doe,
 		OBJECT.Method,
 		METHOD.Record,
 		METHOD.Afford,
 		LOCALE.IntraNode,
 		MOMENT.Minute = 30 	);

The “30” aggregates to every 30 minutes.

Now we can plan our data capture. Again an alternate use for the RECORD verb. Again the cells for capture are all adjacent to the left or down:

RECORD	RecordName
 	(	MOTIVE.Esteem,
 		PERSON.Patron,
 		PERSON.Member,
 		OBJECT.Method
 );

This would create the following form:

Here we set up the affordances for the entities:

AFFORD	AffordName
 		RECORD.RecordName
	TO 	PERSON.Member;

Finally, we execute the RECORD Script and as the Member isn’t given the Member must log in:

ENGAGE	EngageName
 	(	RECORD.RecordName
	AND	PERSON.Member
	);

The code I have created here is a radical departure from the syntax releases I have come out with so far as I realized what the design was leading me to create. And that is the clincher. The design brought itself out. I have just been trying to follow it along.

What I am finding is there are not four verbs–Select, Insert, Update, Delete–but six–create, relate, report, record, afford and engage!

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

STL: Structured Thinking Language R0.3

I had a bit of an epiphany today. What I realized is that by structuring Structured Thinking Language as I have, everything can evolve as lists. Each VERB is simply the addition of another list to the NOUN you are working with.

Six Verbs: CREATE, RELATE, REPORT, RECORD, AFFORD, ENGAGE

Six Nouns: MOTIVE, LOCALE, OBJECT, METHOD, PERSON, MOMENT

Four Adjectives: INDUCED, DEDUCED and IMPLICIT, EXPLICIT

CREATE INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
     NOUN
        (   nounname_1,
            ...,
            nounname_n
        );       

RELATE INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
     NOUN.nounname TO
                (    NOUN_1.nounname_1,
                     ...,
                     NOUN_n.nounname_n
                );         

REPORT INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
    NOUN.nounname
                (    attributename_1,
                     ...,
                     attributename_n
                );       

RECORD INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
    NOUN.nounname.attributename
                (    constraintname_1,
                     ...,
                     constraintname_n
                );         

AFFORD INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
    NOUN.nounname
                (    SELECT
                     INSERT,
                     UPDATE,
                     DELETE
                )
                ON
                (   NOUN_1.nounname_1,
                    ...,
                    NOUN_n.nounname_n
                );         

ENGAGE INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
SELECT|INSERT|UPDATE|DELETE

Obviously, it still needs work, but we can see where the Structured Thinking Language adds value to the design process. SQL does have it’s place in data manipulation. However, STL has a place in data definition. See the related posts for background information on this syntax.

Related Posts:

Structured Thinking Language R0.3