Talk:Triune continuum paradigm

Untitled
The entire main article is reminiscent of the Sokal hoax. Anyone who doesn't see that doesn't know the subject matter very well. The only question is whether it's an actual hoax or whether the author really does think he's on to something important.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.100.148 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. It is not a hoax. And yes, I really do think it is something important. If anybody has a real, candid critique of the Triune Continuum Paradigm, then he or she is welcome to publish it in specialized peer-reviewed academic publications (this is a regular process of resolutions of scientific controversies). Andrey Naumenko. Aipetri (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely a hoax. It pretends to be about the Triune Continuum Paradigm, and yet it makes no effort to tells us anything about the paradigm, only its effects. Why is there any debate about deleting this? 64.71.2.189 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk: after the proposition to delete the article (16 April 2009)
Dear Sandstein,

You have proposed to delete the article about the Triune Continuum Paradigm from Wikipedia based on the following comment: "Non-notable research; exercise in self-promotion by the author".

As for the first statement ("Non-notable research"), could you clarify: what criterion in WP:GNG does this article violate? I double checked the 5 criteria before deciding to publish the article and triple checked them again now, - in my oppinion all the criteria are fulfilled by the article.

As for the second statement ("exercise in self-promotion by the author"), I have resolved this concern in the revision from 21:55, 16 April 2009. This revision does not mention the author of the paradigm any more. Now the paradigm's authorship can only be found from the verifiable reliable sources that are listed in References section. The sources are all refereed academic publications by international publishers who are comletely independent from the paradigm's author, thus the sources cannot be considered as a self-promotion by the author.

Looking forward to receive a timely responce from your side, in order to settle this divergence before the deletion deadline.

Regards,

Andrey Naumenko (Aipetri (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Hello. It seems that all references provided in the article are (co)authored by you, except "A. Wegmann, L.-S. Lê, G. Regev, B. Wood, Enterprise modeling using the foundation concepts of the RM-ODP ISO/ITU standard", which does not seem to be about the topic of the paradigm. The paradigm thus appears to fail WP:GNG because it lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", because such sources exclude "works produced by those affiliated with the subject". Even should you be able to provide independent sources, your writing of the article constitutes a conflict of interest as defined by WP:COI (see, in particular, WP:BESTCOI).  Sandstein   04:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Sandstein,


 * Based on your comment, I consider issue #1 ("Non-notable research") to be still under discussion, issue #2 ("exercise in self-promotion by the author") to be resolved and closed, and issue # 3 ("conflict of interest") as a newly emerged issue.


 * Issue # 1:


 * 1.1 The aforementioned article of A. Wegmann, L.-S. Lê, G. Regev, B. Wood explains how the paradigm was applied to obtain SEAM ontology, thus it has a direct relevance with regard to the topic.


 * 1.2 Even though the referred papers are (co)authored by me, I consider the sources to be produced by the independent publishers and not by myself. Indeed, I haven't produced the sources: I (co)authored the material used in the sources, then the material was refereed by independent experts and published by the publishers who was responsible to produce the sources. And of course, the publishers who produced the sources are not affiliated with the subject of the article.


 * Issue # 3:


 * According to WP:COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." In the case of the article under discussion, advancing outside interests is not more important to me than advancing the aims of Wikipedia ("which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia"). Thus I am not in a conflict of interest.


 * Regards,


 * Andrey Naumenko (Aipetri (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I disagree and have nominated the article for a community deletion discussion. As one of the leading scientists associated with this topic, you are automatically in a conflict of interest when covering it on Wikipedia.  Sandstein   09:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Sandstein,


 * Your disagreement does not state arguments on issue #1, thus I consider issue #1 ("Non-notable research") to be resolved and closed.


 * As for your argument on issue #3, could you please provide the corresponding proof from the Wikipedia rules that would qualify me to be in an automatic conflict of interest, regardless my primary motivation for this article: "which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia".


 * Regards,


 * Andrey Naumenko (Aipetri (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC))


 * You should make any further comments on this matter on the dedicated deletion discussion page, Articles for deletion/Triune Continuum Paradigm.  Sandstein   09:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article orphan in more than one way
Hi Andrew. Now the article will stay for now, I tagged it with an orphan tag. This tag can be removed if three article link to this page, which I just fixed. However, at the moment I have the feeling this article is orphan in more then one way. This article is rather isolated, in the whole of existing Wikipedia articles in the field of systems science and modeling. I wonder if this can be solved here...!?

I read the "Triune Continuum Paradigm" item in the Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, where I got the picture the paradigm wants to offer a foundation for systems modelling, maybe even offer a reference model such as the Meta-Object Facility for UML. Or maybe it can be developed into a reference model. One thing I didn't understand from the article is, what the result is from applying the paradigm to UML, RM-ODP and SEAM...? Does it alter these items? Or create something new?

I do think it would be nice if this article, would be more embedded in the Wikipedia. I have been thinking about writing an article about systems modeling myself. Maybe we can exchange some ideas about this. I would be interested in your ideas about this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. I will remove the orphan tag again.


 * Hi Marcel. Yes, I agree that the article needs to be integrated with the existing Wikipedia articles in the field of systems science and modeling. And I think the way of doing this could be, in summary:
 * to improve the article with more details and clarifications, referring to other Wikipedia articles;
 * to explain in pertinent other Wikipedia articles how the Triune Continuum Paradigm fits in their stories.
 * Does this sound reasonable to you?


 * Triune Continuum Paradigm is a possible answer to Quinobi's question that was discussed in 'Conceptual framework' article talk. That is, the paradigm explains how to build a conceptual framework for a given purpose; more concretely, how to build a logically rigorous conceptual framework with a number of important features such as:
 * internal consistency (absence of undesired self-contradictions between the framework’s concepts in their applications in practice).
 * explicit definition of interpretations that are assigned to the framework concepts, promoting coherency of such interpretations in practical applications of the framework;
 * adequacy (necessity and sufficiency) of the framework’s concepts to cover the scope defined by the framework's purpose.


 * Triune Continuum Paradigm is a paradigm in the sense of defintion from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:


 * "Paradigm, as used by Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962), a set of scientific and metaphysical beliefs that make up a theoretical framework within which scientific theories can be tested, evaluated and if necessary revised."


 * Triune Continuum Paradigm defines a set of scientific foundations (principles) within which conceptual frameworks used for system modeling in different contexts can be build, tested, evaluated and if necessary revised. Thus, when you take an existent conceptual framework, such as UML or RM-ODP, the paradigm allows you to test the framework against its principles and to show the framework's deficiencies (if any), allowing (explaining how) to fix the deficiencies in a possible revision of the framework. And when you want to build a new system modeling framework, e.g. the one used in SEAM, the paradigm provides you guidelines on how to do it assuring the resulting quality of the framework.


 * I agree and I am ready to work on the embedding.
 * An article on system modeling may be a good idea, I need to think on what could be a possible input from my side. Aipetri (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * References

Ok, thanks for explaning. I just added the texts from R.M. Dijkman (2006) to the article with links to Alloy and formal semantics. I think it would be nice if this article would explain more about the general idea and similair ideas in other literature then your own. There should be a balance in the references you use. I think eventually there shouldn't be more then maybe say 25% references to your own work. Then there is a balance. This is a base for any encyclopedic article. To bring some balance to the article I removed two references, and I will maybe even remove more. Some thing have to change, if this article wants to last. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. to make this article more encyclopedic, I think an first paragraph about the general idea of paradigms and conceptual frameworks for system modeling could help, maybe with a summary of existing paradigms.


 * Thank you, Marcel for the suggestion. I added “Introduction” section. I also plan to add more explanations to “Foundations and their implications” section later. Now the article has some more references to sources that are not authored by me. As for your suggested 25% balance for any encyclopedic article, this may be good, just let me note that many Wikipedia articles do not fulfill this percentage in their references. And as for me, I do not see any problem in having such articles in Wikipedia. Aipetri (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. It think the introduction you just added, and more or less the whole current article, is all focusses on just explaining the paradigm. Did you notice almost every sentce mentions the word "paradigm". If you want to make a more encyclopedic article there are some things a more general audience would like to know. I would explain this this step by step.
 * Given the Triune Continuum Paradigm to be a paradigm for general system modeling, which allows for building of conceptual frameworks for system modeling.
 * The overview section should explain first what system modeling is? And general systems modeling? Which kind of systems modeling methodologies exist? And if they already consist of conceptual frameworks?
 * For example it seems to me the Meta-Object Facility is such a conceptual framework, the OMG itself called a metamodeling architecture.
 * Other enterprise modelling languages, for example one I know DEMO, consist of their own conceptual frameworks based on own, call it, paradigm.
 * Also modeling languages independent frameworks have been defined, such as CIMOSA and GERAM and others
 * With these example you can first establish there is difference between paradigm, conceptual frameworks, modeling techniques, modeling languages, and metamodeling frameworks.
 * If you established this base then in a history section you can put some of the mayor developments in a historical perspective
 * And then you have a base to explain some more about the paradigm itself, and what it can add to the current allready complicated situation.
 * I guess this is the path I would start if I wanted to make this article more embedded in Wikipedia. Unfortunatly I have other priorities, such as getting a PhD research of my own in this field on the road. Hopefully this will give you some ideas to carry on. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To me your last message presents a good sketch of an article on general system modeling (nice plan, indeed!). I will be glad to contribute to it (when having time for this) in cooperation with anybody who will be interested. But this sketch goes far beyond the scope of the article that we are discussing now. In my opinion the current article should remain focused on its subject, while a different article on the subject of general system modeling is certainly the one that I will be glad to contribute to. Aipetri (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One way or an other I keep the feel the context is still missing here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Redundant?
In the Introduction section, the first paragraph is a quote that is pretty much repeated in the second paragraph. Would it be possible to remove one of them in favor of the other without losing any quality? L1ght5h0w (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Allows to test
"Thus, for an existent modeling framework, the paradigm allows to test the framework against..."

Maybe it's just me, but is this the underlined part correct? Just sounds odd to me. L1ght5h0w (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)