Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triune Continuum Paradigm


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Triune Continuum Paradigm

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable topic of research and WP:COI. The article and Google / Google Scholar indicate few if any coverage which the article author and inventor of this "paradigm" did not co-author. Contested PROD, see also the article talk page.  Sandstein  09:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue with "Non-notable topic of research" was discussed in the article talk page. The non-notability was disapproved by the factual evidence: existence of verifiable and reliable sources (refereed academic publications by international publishers who are completely independent from the article's author).
 * The only remaining issue seems to be a suspected conflict of interest; the existence on the conflict does not look justified (see the discussion from the article talk page). (Aipetri (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Also, the factual evidence disproves "Google / Google Scholar" argument of Sandstein. Here are some publications that were not (co)authored by the article's author, that refer to the Triune Continuum Paradigm and that were found using the aforementioned Internet search tools only:


 * [1]	J.P.A. Almeida, G. Guizzardi. On the Foundation for Roles in RM-ODP: Contributions from Conceptual Modelling, Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on ODP for Enterprise Computing (WODPEC 2007), the 11-th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2007). Annapolis, Maryland, USA, October 2007. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOCW.2007.21


 * [2]	P. Balabko. Situation-Based Modeling Framework for Enterprise Architecture. PhD Thesis 3234, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Lausanne, EPFL 2005.


 * [3]	P. Balabko, A. Wegmann. Precise Graphical Representation of Roles in Requirements Engineering, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Engineering Methods to Support Information Systems Evolution, EMSISE’03, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2003.


 * [4]	R.M. Dijkman. Consistency in multi-viewpoint architectural design. PhD thesis 06-80, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, 2006.


 * [5]	R.M. Dijkman, J.P.A. Almeida, D.A.C. Quartel. Verifying the Correctness of Component-Based Applications that Support Business Processes, Proceedings of the 6th ICSE Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering: Automated Reasoning and Prediction, pp. 43-48, Portland, Oregon, USA, May 2003.


 * [6]	R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, M.J. van Sinderen. Consistency in multi-viewpoint design of enterprise information systems, Information and Software Technology, Volume 50, Issues 7-8, pp. 737-752. June 2008, Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.07.007


 * [7]	R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, L.F. Pires, M.J. van Sinderen. An approach to relate viewpoints and modeling languages, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2003, pp. 14-27, September 2003, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOC.2003.1233834


 * [8]	R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, L.F. Pires, M.J. van Sinderen. A rigorous approach to relate enterprise and computational viewpoints, Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2004, pp. 187-200, September 2004, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOC.2004.1342515


 * [9]	M. K. Farooq, S. Shamail , A. M. Mian, Reference model for devolution in e-governance, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 351. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 123-129. December 2008, Cairo, Egypt.


 * [10]	S.I. Herrera, M.M. Clusella, G.N. Tkachuk, P.A. Luna. How System Models Contributes to the Design of Information Systems, Proceedings of the First World Congress of the International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR 2005): The New Roles of Systems Sciences For a Knowledge-based Society; Kobe, Japan, November 2005.


 * [11]	D. José, A. Wegmann, G. Regev. Expressing Systemic Contexts in Visual Models of System Specifications. Proceedings of the Workshop on Context Modeling and Decision Support. T. Bui, A. Gachet (Eds.) Paris, CEUR-WS, Volume 144, July 2005.


 * [12]	K. Lano. A compositional semantics of UML-RSDS. Software and Systems Modeling. Volume 8, Number 1, pp. 85-116. February 2009, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. DOI 10.1007/s10270-007-0064-x


 * [13]	K. Lano. Using B to verify UML Transformations, Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Model design and Validation (MODEVA 2006), B. Baudry, D. Hearnden, N. Rapin, J. G. Süß (Eds.), pp. 46-61; Genova, Italy, October 2006.


 * [14]	L.S. Le, A. Wegmann. Definition of an Object-Oriented Modeling Language for Enterprise Architecture. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS’05); p. 222a. Hawaii, USA, Jan. 2005, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.186


 * [15]	L.S. Le, A. Wegmann. Meta-model for Object-Oriented Hierarchical Systems. Technical report No. IC/2004/47, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, 2004.


 * [16]	R.A. Lopez Toro. Estimation des risques d'incohérence liés à l'emploi d'UML pour le développement des systèmes. PhD Thesis No 961, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Toulouse, 2009.


 * [17]	O. Ukrainets. UFO-element presentation in metamodel structure of triune continuum paradigm. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technologies, CSIT’2006. September 2006, Lviv, Ukraine.


 * [18]	A Wegmann, A Kotsalainen, L Matthey, G Regev, A. Giannattasio. Augmenting the Zachman enterprise architecture Framework with a systemic conceptualization. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2008, pp. 3-13. doi/10.1109/EDOC.2008.49


 * [19]	A. Wegmann, L.S. Lê, G. Regev, B. Wood. Enterprise modeling using the foundation concepts of the RM-ODP ISO/ITU standard, Information Systems and E-Business Management, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 397-413. September, 2007; Springer. DOI 10.1007/s10257-007-0051-3


 * [20]	A. Wegmann, L.S. Lê, B. Wood. Multi-level System Modeling Using the Foundation Concepts of RM-ODP. Technical report No. LAMS/2006/03, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, 2006.


 * Here are some projects that use the paradigm applications and that also were found using the aforementioned Internet search tools only:


 * [1p]	Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland.
 * Project: Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM)
 * http://lamswww.epfl.ch/reference/seam/theory_tool


 * [2p]	Exia Corporation, Ottawa, Canada.
 * Project: Advancements in Software Factory and Domain-Specific Language Implementations
 * http://www.exia.net/content/advancementsinsoftwarefactory.pdf


 * [3p]	Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA.
 * Project: The Alloy Analyzer
 * http://alloy.mit.edu/publications.php


 * [4p]	Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
 * Project: UML 2 Semantics Project
 * http://research.cs.queensu.ca/~stl/internal/uml2/bibtex/ref_uml2semantics.html


 * [5p]	Universidad de Málaga, Spain; Universidad de Córdoba, Spain.
 * Project: www.rm-odp.net
 * http://www.uco.es/~in1rosaj/rmodp/publications.html


 * I sincerely hope that this evidence, in addition to the references that are already present in the article, convinces everybody that mentioned by Sandstein suspected paradigm's non-notability is actually untrue. Aipetri (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I do understand your point of view. You are developing a new theory, which becomes published in several notable publications, and other institutes start to have interest in your work. But in Wikipedia this is not enough. We only accept subjects, which have some sever coverage in reliable, third-party, published sources, no mater how much you publish yourself. If this third-party coverage isn't their yet, then we classify the topic as not-notable. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The third party reliable sources exist ([1]-[8] on the article page). I didn’t reference any of my self-publications. All of the referenced publications were published by reliable third parties which are not affiliated with me. My affiliations are only: Triune Continuum Enterprise and Creative View S.A., - the publications of these organisations were not referenced as sources. Aipetri (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry. I think you lost me. You are claiming the 1 to 8 reference in the Triune Continuum Paradigm article are the third party reliable sources!? The reference section list:
 * the first source, your PhD thesis from June 2002, published the Triune Continuum Paradigm
 * six other of your publications, and
 * one publication by your thesis professor A. Wegmann.
 * All your publications (in Wikipedia) are considered first party sources and your professor's publication second party source. These are no third party reliable sources -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the context of Wikipedia rules "third party" refers to publisher (as opposed to "self-published" material) and not to the authorship. So in this case the mentioned publications are all third party sources (see explanation below). Aipetri (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another wannabe TLA about somebody's Elk theory, couched in such vague language as to defy any attempt to make sense of it.  If someone can explain, in plain English, the difference between a computing "paradigm" based on Tarski's semantic theory of truth, as opposed to another "paradigm" that's supposed to somehow use, say, a correspondence theory of truth - only then will I accept that this isn't hyperinflated nonsense created to sound lofty and difficult without containing any actual insight.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tarski’s theory of truth was used to formulate the Triune Continuum Paradigm, because it allows for formal reasoning about expressions made in a system modeling language. The application of Tarski’s theory to general system modeling makes it possible to express system models in a computer interpretable form and to employ computer automation to unambiguously demonstrate:
 * adequateness (or inadequateness) of modeling representations with regard to the agreed conceptualizations of a universe of the modeling discourse;
 * coherency (or incoherency) of interpretations within modeling representations;
 * limits of the application scope of a modeling language (in particular, showing where the language is formally inapplicable).


 * As for the mentioned correspondence theory of truth, I can be mistaking, but as far as I understand, it can be considered as a generalization of Tarski’s theory; and unlike Tarski’s theory, the correspondence theory does not provide a logical formalism that would allow to formulate Tarski’s formal semantics and to apply to them subsequent computer automation.


 * More details on the application of Tarski’s theory to general system modeling can be found in the following publication:


 * [21] A. Naumenko, A. Wegmann, C. Atkinson. "The Role of Tarski’s Declarative Semantics in the Design of Modeling Languages", Technical report No. IC/2003/43, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, April 2003.


 * I hope this explanation clarifies the story. Aipetri (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Leaving aside my inclination to wonder whether the expression 'Get a life' could have been applied to the people concerned, there is definitely notability in the cases of Russell and Tarski, and quite a few ghits for the third component and the paradigm itself. I do feel that the article strays from the encyclopaedic in being rather incomprehensible. I realise that to most people this sort of stuff sounds like gibberish (I include myself in the majority there), and wish that someone would translate from jargon into English. (This applies to many expositions of both Logic and Philosophy, which could explain the unpopularity of both subjects...) Peridon (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be mistaking (if so, please share a pointer to the corresponding rules), but I do not suppose that Wikipedia is only for light reading. As you said, there are many expositions of scientific subjects included here that are difficult to comprehend to most people. But, in my opinion, this doesn’t make the articles unencyclopaedic. Indeed, according to the definition of five pillars of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". And in our case we are dealing with a subject from specialized encyclopedias: articles on the Triune Continuum Paradigm were published in “Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology” (see references [3] and [5] on the article’s main page). Aipetri (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not unfamiliar with older philosophy (having addressed an audience on aspects of Schopenhauer's thought), but modern philosophy and logic seems to be deliberately designed to be totally esoteric and impenetrable. Bearing in mind that people use encyclopaedias in many cases to find out what a subject is about, I feel that a section giving a summary in ordinary English would be advantageous. I am not calling for deletion - I would go for Keep pro tem at least - but for what to my mind would be improvement. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article can be improved, and I planned to work on it, adding more details and explanations. I hope to continue this work as soon as the current discussion will conclude and the article will be kept in Wikipedia. Aipetri (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any reliable source discussing this paradigm. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See references [1]-[8] on the article’s main page. If you think that these sources are unreliable, then please explain why you think so. Aipetri (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have said third party reliable source, see Reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, please explain why you think that the publishers of 4 refereed international journals, the publisher of two refereed editions of “Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology”, the publisher of refereed proceedings of an international workshop and the best Swiss technical school are not reliable third parties. Thanks. Aipetri (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Systemics. This topic is beginning to get some attention in third party sources, so I guess this topic could be kept for now merged into Systemics, and listed as a application there, untill it draws some more attention. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, based on “primary, secondary, and tertiary sources” rule. Aipetri (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of the difference between a self-published and a third-party published source.

Since it appears to be a reoccuring argument, I would like to clarify that in order to distinguish between a self-published and a third-party published source, it is necessary to check the publisher:
 * If the publisher is the source's author or his/her affiliated organization, then it is a self-published material.
 * If the publisher is not the author or his/her affiliated organization (and not Wikipedia, who is considered to be the second party), then it is a third-party publication.

Aipetri (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I just explained it is not about the publisher, but about the author. There needs to be articles written by third party authors. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I think that in the context of Wikipedia rules you are mistaking. In Wikipedia rules “third party” is opposed to “self-published” and not to “self-authored”. There is no such thing in this context as “third party author”, because there is no “second party author”. To the contrary, “third party publisher” is opposed to the “second party publisher” (Wikipedia) and to self-publication. Aipetri (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am about to make my 50.000s contribution to Wikipedia after five years. Could it be, you are mistaking? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We should not be talking about you and me, we should talk about Wikipedia rules. In this particular case I have well founded reasons to say that Wikipedia rules are on my side and not on yours. Aipetri (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, when we are talking about third party sources, it is always about the author. Ask any other wikipedian. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, see here. All your work are considered primary sources.


 * I see what you mean. I agree on the rule about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and on the way you applied it to the article under discussion. However, let us also agree that the rule on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and the rule on self-published work are two different rules. The former refers to authorship while the latter refers to publisher origins.


 * If you are saying that “self-published sources” rule was designed to refer to the authorship rather then to the publisher origins, then it is a poorly (misleadingly) stated rule and it needs to be changed to “self-authored sources”. However, I think that this rule (unlike primary, secondary, and tertiary sources rule) must be about the publisher origin. This is confirmed by the usage of word “third-party” that in everyday life refers to a party who is independent from the two parties involved in some sort of relationship. In our case the relationship is between a Wikipedia’s article author and Wikipedia as a publisher. The rule suggests that a Wikipedia’s article author should not rely primarily on self-published sources, but should rely primarily on third-party sources (that is: not self-published and not Wikipedia-published).


 * The article under discussion satisfies “do not rely on self-published sources, but rely on third-party sources” rule. But, I agree that the article’s subject currently appears relatively weak with regard to its coverage in secondary sources (“primary, secondary, and tertiary sources” rule). Additional research is needed to show more of the secondary sources (if they already exist). Aipetri (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources talkpage is the place to ask more general questions about Wikipedia rules. I personally don't think there are exactly two different rules here. In Wikipedia everybody can make up the rules, so several rules could relate to one subject. In this matter I think the termology might be confusing. Also reliable third party sources aren't always about the author, it can also relate to a website where the author is unknown. There are a lot of ins and outs in Wikipedia rules. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.