Hi all,
While I agree with Terry's excellent post, I will suggest that tools like
CmapTools have merit.
In particular, I find it easier to catch logical flaws in my reasoning with
a Cmap than with just plain text.
Not epistemologically sound, true, but better than anything sort of formal
logic.
There is a "ontology editor" based on CmapTools (
http://www.ihmc.us/groups/coe/) which adds another layer of improved
soundness.
The other two "big names" viz software for this kind of diagramming of which
I am aware are:
VUE (http://vue.tufts.edu/) - more concept mapping
Compendium (http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/) - IBIS based system
Cheers.
Fil
On 7 March 2011 22:42, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Ranjit,
>
> Tough question, Which is why it hasn't been already solved so easily in
> most
> design fields.
> [...]
>
> One of the limitations that is really problematic and results in failure
> in
> using CMap to map concepts is CMap has no mechanism for maintaining,
> checking and comparing the epistemological foundations and dependencies of
> each concept and its necessary epistemological relationships with other
> concepts. In other words, CMap unhelpfully enables users to mix and
> connect
> concepts that are epistemologically different - the 'apples and oranges'
> problem.
> [...]
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|