Figure 8. Path Notation
Shouldn't there be some additional explanation for path? E.g., difference with network, naming, main relations, etc. The other elements have this, and there also was an explanation when Path was still in the technology layer (although this text will have to be modified because the use of Path has been extended).
Henk
rather than instances
In some areas it is also common to describe instances, like departments are instances of an actor and very ofthe the technology domain describes the instances too (particular servers).
First, as described in
First, by means of the specialization of concepts, as described in (AP)
grouping concept
Is there some more detailed guidance on this? I would never think of it this way. If I have a department it would consists of sub-departments, application component of functions (assignment) etc.
This has its roots in data modeling
Not an expert in data modeling, for me the concept is more familiar from Zachman framework in which some more levels are defined but more importantly word physical means the physical implementation and is not limited to data storages etc.
physical
Physical here has different meaining than physical elements and should be explained.
called an interface
Not only - see my previous comment to 3.4
also called interfaces
I thin "also called" has slightly different meining. I understand interface as on of potential many external active structure elements (they could be specializaed in parallel to interface) nut also called means that they are the same. The same applies to services below.
depicted in
depicted in the metamodel figures in white boxes with label in italics (AP)
To signify this, they are depicted in white with labels in italics.
Add explanation on meaning of the relationships too. They should not be understood as ArchiMate relationship. Then each of them should be explained. I would also consider removing the composition for the model to concept as the composition is on later metamodels depicted by using normal link (triggering like one - see 4.3)
Top-Level Language Structure
I would add some statement to this chapter about naming the concepts. That similar to spoken language concepts have names where for elements is almost always specified (also exchange file format requires elements to have names) while fot relationships and junctions they are allowed but used rarely.
and it may depend on the context whether a certain piece of software is considered to be part of the Application Domain or the Technology Domain
Maybe example showing the same difficulty between IT and physical may help as well. E.g. printer can be expressed both device and equipment.
global
maybe "conceptual" instead of "global" (AP)
one domain are served by the services of other domains.
I would rephrase it to active tense which is more natural and will be consistent with realization description below.
and can be realized by data objects.
I suggest to remove this part as: 1) material is missing, and 2) the following paragraphs provides similar (but accurate) information. (JB)
Semantics of Dependency Relationships
We should avoid using blue for service part in A. When changing the picture, please set the height of service A to the same as for the process B to make it more consistent. Please swhitch the order of the right part to behaviour - passive (left to right).
Assignment
Please move the active element (interface) to the left to keep active-behaviour-passive order. Also replace composition with aggregation. I would also change the applicaiton's ambiguous name Finance to something like Financial application, ERP, ...
aspects
I would add "and domains"
A conforming implementation:
We should add a requirement to support the Exchange FIle Format to make it explicit
comprises both information technology and operational (physical) technology
comprises both information technology and operational (physical) technology that enable and support the enterprise operating model
depicts the applications
depicts the applications' structure and behavior (AP)
depicts the organization
depicts the organization structure and behavior (AP)
Any conflict between definitions described here and the TOGAF framework is unintentional. If the definition of a term is specific to the ArchiMate modeling language, and a general definition is defined by the TOGAF framework, then this is noted in the definition.
Is this statement needed? I would limit links to TOGAF to minimum. Also the statement is not true as the ArchiMate definitions are many time intentionally different to TOGAF counterparts.
threefold
I would also add something like: Those who would like to create easy to understand structured visualizations and/or models.
application
The word application might be confusing for non-native speakers as they would think it somehow relates to application domain. I would rephrase it or remove the word application here.
Implementation and Migration Elements
In all previous chapters description of an element always ends with its notation picture. In this chapter some texts are present below the notation picture so it is inconsistent to the rest of the document
active structure
Not needed here as it is also not stated at the other elements.
elements
singular should be used
As explained in ([ch-common-domain]), active structure elements can be assigned to common behavior elements such as processes and functions. This way, you can e.g. model that a business actor performs a process or a business interface provides a service. These behavior elements, in turn, can access passive elements, so you can model that this process reads or writes a business object.
This chapter uses statements like you can which is the other style than the one used in previous chapters.
railway
not only railways so I would add "e.g." or something similar.
elements
The word elements is twice in the sentence, should be removed or rephrased.
travel insurance
Should be with capital letters as all previous examples.
elements
singular should be used
application
The word application might be confusing for non-native speakers as they would think it somehow relates to application domain. I would rephrase it or remove the word application here.
Implementation and Migration Elements
In all previous chapters description of an element always ends with its notation picture. In this chapter some texts are present below the notation picture so it is inconsistent to the rest of the document
active structure
Not needed here as it is also not stated at the other elements.
As explained in ([ch-common-domain]), active structure elements can be assigned to common behavior elements such as processes and functions. This way, you can e.g. model that a business actor performs a process or a business interface provides a service. These behavior elements, in turn, can access passive elements, so you can model that this process reads or writes a business object.
This chapter uses statements like you can which is the other style than the one used in previous chapters.
application
The word application might be confusing for non-native speakers as they would think it somehow relates to application domain. I would rephrase it or remove the word application here.
Implementation and Migration Elements
In all previous chapters description of an element always ends with its notation picture. In this chapter some texts are present below the notation picture so it is inconsistent to the rest of the document
railway
not only railways so I would add "e.g." or something similar.
active structure
Not needed here as it is also not stated at the other elements.
elements
The word elements is twice in the sentence, should be removed or rephrased.
travel insurance
Should be with capital letters as all previous examples.
elements
singular should be used
As explained in ([ch-common-domain]), active structure elements can be assigned to common behavior elements such as processes and functions. This way, you can e.g. model that a business actor performs a process or a business interface provides a service. These behavior elements, in turn, can access passive elements, so you can model that this process reads or writes a business object.
This chapter uses statements like you can which is the other style than the one used in previous chapters.
digital distraction
What does that even mean? Ok, I can imagine some specific things that are both "distraction" and inherently "digital", but how are those significant compared to specific non-digital distractions, like drugs and whatever type of music not in your particular taste?
Promethean devide
seemingly more often labelled as Promethean gap
dimension
A dimension is quantifiable, which seems not the relevant feature here.
Perhaps better use aspect or group?
Digital technologies certainly offer new possibilities, for example,through the enormous world reach extension in screen-mediateddialogue with others. For the core of tentacular learning, however,for the development of attention, resonance, and affinitive self-organizing processes, they are insignificant
Commonly, sure, but are digital technologies really categorically insignificant for tentacular learning?
Seems that certain set of digital technologies are supportive of tentacular thinking by design, and thus potentially significant if used as per their intended design.
embark the path
better phrased as "embark on the path"
reflecting
seems more correct here to write "reflecting on".
https:// ec.europa.eu/info/ research- and-innovat ion/ strat egy/ goals-resea rch- and- inn ovat ion- pol icy/ open- science/ open- access _ en
Hyperlink is broken (links to front page of the website). Content link is broken as well (bogusly contains spaces).
www.zeit.de/digi tal/2023-04/emily- bender-ki-gefahr-ethik/ komp lett ansi cht
Hyperlink is broken (links to front page of the website). Content link is broken as well (bogusly contains spaces).
A theoryof technological politics must therefore include the dimension ofcreating and shaping alternative forms of technological practice.Forms that, from the first moment of production, are systematicallyimagined in their significance for human life and the world that donot consolidate one-sided interests, social injustice, and controlover others but seek to overcome them and embody a generalizedthinking, caring for the world and for the common good.
This seems to imply - unsubstantiated! - that intended purpose of technologies is inherently about oppression, whereas unintended secondary uses of technology is where liberation from oppression should be sought.
andgo on a digital search for knowledge turn on my device
A comma is crucially missing after "knowledge", to make it clear that "turn on my device" is an action, rather than "knowledge turn" being a weird thing to search for on my device.
the question of how the digitallyentangled practice of learning, can be appropriately shaped
comma seems inappropriate here
the new situation they place us in our learning activity
There is an "in" missing, as it is required both for what "they place us in" and also for how that placement is in our activity: "the new situation they placed us in in our learning activity".
https://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/Budapest_Vienna_Declaration_598640.pdf
Hyperlink is broken (links to front page of the website). Content link works.
there is no fulfilling learning, no creativity, and innovative thought
seems ambiguous to leave out negation for the last part of a repeated list. Also, feels confusing albeit technically correct to tie the parts with "and" when negated. Together, seems better to rephrase like this: "there is no fulfilling learning, <del>no</del> creativity, <del>and</del>or innovative thought". Alternatively, if the intent is to emphasize stronger each part, then it feels better to at least explicitly negate the last part, like this: "there is no fulfilling learning, no creativity, and no** innovative thought".
that
sentence seems incomprehensive - perhaps replace with "those", or is something else misread or wrong?
can therefore, as Frigga Haug points out, maybe betterdescribed
grammatical error: Change to either "is [...] described" or "can [...] be described".
Perhaps tools like ChatGPT signal the start of a revise revolution in OER creation, where the role of an OER creator starts not with creating content but with creating the correct prompts to generate a first draft of content, then spends the bulk of their time revising and validating the content.
Editorial conventions may differ from publication to publication, but they are usually avariant of the so-called Leiden System. See Schubert, “Editing a Papyrus,” 203
As I detail in a later section
Search indicates the word "later" appears in this book 123 times, about half of them (57 by a quick count) are in contexts of the author saying he'll explain something later in the book. This is an annoying habit and would be better replaced with links to the exact pages where the material occurs.
Alternately/in addition to, an index could be immensely helpful here.
How does a book which speaks so heavily of indices and their value not have an index?
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Dear god I really hate when publishers do their references/notes like this. Sitting here at the end, unlinked to the actual text. There's a special place in hell for editors that do this in the digital age.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson/
I can see why there's so much backlash on this piece.
It could and should easily have been written without any reference at all to E. O. Wilson and been broadly interesting and true. However given the editorial headline "The Complicated Legacy of E. O. Wilson", the recency of his death, and the photo at the top, it becomes clickbait for something wholly other.
There is only passing reference to Wilson and any of his work and no citations whatsoever about who he was or why his work was supposedly controversial. Instead the author leans in on the the idea of the biology being the problem instead of the application of biology to early anthropology which dramatically mis-read the biology and misapplied it for the past century and a half to bolster racist ideas and policies.
The author indicates that we should be better with "citational practices when using or reporting on problematic work", but wholly forgets to apply it to her own writing in this very piece.
I'm aware that the magazine editors are most likely the ones that chose the headline and the accompanying photo, but there's a failure here in both editorial and writing for this piece to have appeared in Scientific American in a way as to make it more of a hit piece on Wilson just days after his death. Worse, the backlash of the broadly unsupported criticism of Wilson totally washed out the attention that should have been placed on the meat of the actual argument in the final paragraphs.
Editorial failed massively on all fronts here.
This article seems to be a clear example of the following:
Any time one uses the word "problematic" to describe cultural issues, it can't stand alone without some significant context building and clear arguments about exactly what was problematic and precisely why. Otherwise the exercise is a lot of handwaving and puffery that does neither side of an argument or its intended audiences any good.
Waterson, J. (2022, January 11). BBC does not subscribe to ‘cancel culture’, says director of editorial policy. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/11/bbc-does-not-subscribe-to-cancel-culture-says-director-of-editorial-policy
Aligning editorial mission and business model is critical.
One of the most complex questions in journalism in the past decade or more is how can one best align editorial mission with the business model? This is particularly difficult because the traditional business model(s) have been shifting in the move to online.
Today it comes to life in the form a new section called Future Perfect. As Klein describes it, the coverage is “inspired by the idea of what’s important.”
The power of editorial is its ability to focus attention on what the editors deem to be important.
journalism historian David Mindich
At 11 minutes into this podcast episode, David Mindich provides an overview of Hallin’s spheres.
Hallin divides the world of political discourse into three concentric spheres: consensus, legitimate controversy, and deviance. In the sphere of consensus, journalists assume everyone agrees. The sphere of legitimate controversy includes the standard political debates, and journalists are expected to remain neutral. The sphere of deviance falls outside the bounds of legitimate debate, and journalists can ignore it. These boundaries shift, as public opinion shifts.
I learned about this podcast from Sandy and Nora in their episode, Canada’s democratic deficit.
The Rights Retention Strategy provides a challenge to the vital income that is necessary to fund the resources, time, and effort to provide not only the many checks, corrections, and editorial inputs required but also the management and support of a rigorous peer review process
This is an untested statement and does not take into account the perspectives of those contributing to the publishers' revenue. The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) relies on the author's accepted manuscript (AAM) and for an AAM to exist and to have the added value from peer-review a Version of Record (VoR) must exist. Libraries recognise this fundamental principle and continue to subscribe to individual journals of merit and support lucrative deals with publishers. From some (not all) librarians' and possibly funders' perspectives these statements could undermine any mutual respect.
(2021). How epidemiology has shaped the COVID pandemic. Nature, 589, 491-492. Doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-00183-z
Smith, G. D., Blastland, M., & Munafò, M. (2020). Covid-19’s known unknowns. BMJ, 371. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3979
Health, T. L. P. (2020). COVID-19 in Spain: A predictable storm? The Lancet Public Health, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30239-5
I take your point, but I wonder if Trump is just kryptonite for a liberal democratic system built on a free press.
The key words being "free press" with free meaning that we're free to exert intelligent editorial control.
Editors in the early 1900's used this sort of editorial control not to give fuel to racists and Nazis and reduce their influence.Cross reference: Face the Racist Nation from On the Media.
Apparently we need to exert the same editorial control with respect to Trump, who not incidentally is giving significant fuel to the racist fire as well.
Introduction
Just a food for thought: wouldn't it be a better style to use a neutral form? I.e., "Because the user controls" instead of "Because we control"
This specification does not require any particular technology or cryptography to underpin the generation, persistence, resolution or interpretation of DIDs.
I am not sure this is well formulated. The specification does not require, but implementation does require a bunch of particular technologies. I think the intention here is to say something like "This specification does not depend on any particular technology..."
A DID document might contain the DID subject itself (e.g. a data model).
I do not understand this statement. The DID subject is defined as:
The entity identified by a DID and described by a DID document. A DID has exactly one DID subject. Anything can be a DID subject: person, group, organization, physical thing, digital thing, logical thing, etc. The document cannot contain a person…
DIDs are URLs
Strictly speaking, they are not. They are URI-s and there is a thing called DID URL…
This is only an abstract, but it should still be precise…
Diseases, T. L. I. (2020). Curing COVID-19. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30706-4
r/BehSciMeta - Comment by u/dawnlxh on ”A completely re-imagined approach to peer review and publishing: PRINCIPIA”. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/if03sk/a_completely_reimagined_approach_to_peer_review/g4nnuc5
Thorp, H. H. (2020). Persuasive words are not enough. Science, 368(6498), 1405–1405. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd4085
Rheumatology, T. L. (2020). COVID-19: A time to reflect. The Lancet Rheumatology, 2(6), e309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30102-8
Beest, I. van. (2020). Editorial. Social Influence, 0(0), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1783758
Lancet, T. (2020). Research and higher education in the time of COVID-19. The Lancet, 396(10251), 583. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31818-3
The Trump administration must stop sidelining the CDC. (2020). Nature, 583(7818), 660–660. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02231-6
Scally, G., Jacobson, B., & Abbasi, K. (2020). The UK’s public health response to covid-19. BMJ, m1932. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1932
Editorial: COVID-19 will not leave behind refugees and migrants. The Lancet. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30758-3
Jamieson, R. K., & Pexman, P. M. (2020, April 20). Moving Beyond 20 Questions: We (Still) Need Stronger Psychological Theory. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000223
unidad_COVID2019
Recursos para revisión por pares
I enjoy dissent and debate among commenters, and criticism of my views is also always welcome; you are even free to call me an assclown, a dupe, a partisan ignoramus — whatever you like, as long as you don't insult other commenters.
And since any commenter who only wants to drop taunts at others rather than engage on an intellectual level is a waste of everyone's time, I'll tolerate him or her for a while, a short while, hoping for unearthed maturity; but if this fails, that commenter is gone. Thanks for listening.
I've been meaning to remind readers that I do read the comments. Some time ago, one disappointed commenter mused that others' reflections seemed to go (as I recall) "into a void," because I remained silent to each. Perhaps I was ignoring readers' remarks? I assure you that is not the case. I read them all — although on this site, for some reason, "all" means somewhat sparse — and I find them nearly all remarkable in their perceptiveness. I especially welcome, and enjoy, intelligent disagreement. I choose not to respond, however, only because of my editorial philosophy, which holds that the comment section is, rightfully, for commenters — and commenters alone. I've already had my say, and it seems to me rather rude to take another whack in reply. Whenever I'm so substantively shaky or incoherent as to make my case unpersuasively the first time around, I figure I should live with the consequences. And whenever I find criticism flawed, I figure readers — perceptive as they are — will see the flaw as well, therefore there's no need for me to rub it in. So, I beg you not to take my silence personally.
The majority of this letter is a carbon-copied typescript. Text in blue indicates handwritten emendations by Schlauch.
Cette récente initiative (2018) montre combien ce système universel d'annotation du Web est prometteur.
J'espère que la méfiance croissante des internautes à l'égard des réseaux privatifs, suite à l'Affaire Cambridge Analytica, les encouragera à regarder ce qui se fait dans le monde du libre : hypothes.is, en l'occurrence, mais aussi Friendica, diaspora et le reste du Fediverse et de la Fédération, du côté des réseaux sociaux conventionnels.
A fellow Googler pointed out several factual inaccuracies in this post, and thus I have removed it.
Before correcting those inaccuracies or instead?
An
Should be "A"
insist on approval over the headline.
Best of luck with that. The Future of Journalism requires better headlines. #FoJ
Exogenous corticosteroids can cause reactivation of TB and candidiasis (blocked IL-2 production).
This should be moved to Column-2, under the line "Blocks IL-2 production"
Bound
change to "Binding"