Metapattern […] encompasses relational theory, network theory, and object and aspect orientation. It helps to establish a new level of controlled integration because of its recursive concept of context combined with pervasive temporal differentiation.

in: Notes on Metapattern, part 1

 

Metapattern tries to incorporate a positive legacy of hierarchical and network data modeling.

in: Metapattern as context orientation: meeting Odell's challenge of object orientation

 

Analogous, at least in terminology, to normal forms in relational information sets, behavioral forms exist for the context-oriented approach to information modeling. Behavioral forms mainly control the extent of encapsulation.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

Departing from keeping properties/attributes as it were in a closed container was in fact already known as radical entity-relationship modeling, whereas entity-attribute-relationship modeling considers attributes held inside an entity's container. Metapattern (also) makes all relations explicit.

in: On metapattern and other themes in information management

 

As a method for modeling, the associative approach [of Sentences] has its roots here in the Netherlands, with Sjir Nijssen. About thirty-five years ago he came up with NIAM, or Nijssen's Information Analysis Methodology. The basic idea is that elementary facts are always expressed as predicate propositions. It is now called object-role modeling, as a predicate contains 'slots.' An object occupying such a slot plays a corresponding role, hence object-role modeling. The association concept of Sentences is identical with Nijssen's predicate sentence and Halpin's configuration of roles for objects. All such methods can be classified as belonging to — what subsequently became known as — the language act approach to modeling. […]
Metapattern certainly shares important aspects with the 'traditional' language act approach/paradigm. It essentially differs from, say, object-role modeling in how it unambiguously determines an object's various roles (also read: behaviors). It does so by making context explicit. It makes an information system practically scalable. Rather than encapsulating all roles, a separate 'partial' object is instantiated for each role (as determined by a particular context).

in: On metapattern and other themes in information management

 

[T]he critical issue concerns the scope. How wide is the horizon across which information should be unambiguous? Traditional, say, context-less OO is sufficient in smaller domains, i.e., where we don't run into difficulties with day-to-day language use. Another dimension to consider is flexibility (and therefore modularity).

in: Notes on Metapattern, part 1

 

Metapattern is an approach to information modeling especially designed for moving beyond traditional OO. What […] remain[s] inherently problematic with OO, is given elegant solutions with Metapattern.

in: Metapattern as context orientation: meeting Odell's challenge of object orientation

 

In context orientation, the modeler should give priority to parsing contexts. This contrasts with traditional decomposition, which takes an independent object as its starting point.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

From the philosophical foundation of Metapattern, the division of an overall object is no exception but the absolute rule. This paradigm shift in conceptual information modeling supplies many awkward problems in traditional object orientation with highly compact, elegant solutions which directly follow from principles of context and time.

in: Metapattern as context orientation: meeting Odell's challenge of object orientation

 

A contextualized object is different from an absolute object as assumed by, for example, traditional object orientation.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

Subtypes […] are […] more productively modeled as disjunct contexts for a corresponding variety of partial identities of the overall object.

in: Metapattern as context orientation: meeting Odell's challenge of object orientation

 

Traditional object orientation assigns identity at the level of overall objects. Context orientation replaces this view of singular objects with that of plurality within every object; it always needs a context to uniquely identify a relevant part of an overall object, which is what identifying nodes regulate.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

Traditional object orientation takes the class or type as the starting point; a specific object is then exclusively regarded as a member of the type-defined set/class. For Metapattern, however, the various contexts of objects occupy place of principle.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

The context-oriented approach eliminates the need for inheritance of behavioral rules for different appearances (or identities) which constitute an overall object.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

Context orientation makes type inheritance […] disappear. As a complement, polymorphism greatly increases. The individual contexts, and consequently the contextual types, assure precision within the variety. What is known by a general name always follows the rules specified within the relevant context.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

[A]n overall object disappears as an entity in its own right, modeled instead as a flexible, dynamic collection of partial identities tied together to provide cohesion when and where necessary.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

For Metapattern, the label “core” does not occur. But what acts as core, I repeat, is an object’s nil identity. Please note, as nil identity, in a nil context, it is otherwise devoid of any specification. Only such a radical concept of identity provides requisite variety with optimal efficiency.

in: How so-called core components are missing the point

 

CCTS's concept of "core component" is rather the opposite of what Metapattern treats as an object's core (calling it nil identity). It follows from such quite different assumptions that the contextual mechanisms are essentially different, too.

in: note 23.17

 

As theory, or metamodel, […] Topic Maps is […] compared to Metapattern[.]

in: Topic Maps uprooted

 

[The] model of dynamics of enneadic semiosis also tries to overcome the oversimplification […] characteristic of work during AI's first decades.

in: On metapattern and other themes in information management

 

What [Pile] is missing is [including] intentionality, i.e. the use of information which requires an orientation at what-information-is-about in the first place.

in: On metapattern and other themes in information management

 

Some modifications of Object-Role Modeling (ORM) make it equivalent with Metapattern. [… I]t works through superimposition of a situation and changing the thus situated n-ary ORM relationship into n binary ORM relationships with the constraint that the situation in question is ‘object’ to each of those binary associations.

in: Modifying Object-Role Modeling into Situated-Object-Behavior Modeling with Metapattern

 

This, say, proof that with proper modifications models drawn up according to ORM can become Metapattern models, implies that the same goes for a.o. Entity-Relationship Modeling and Object Orientation.

in: Modifying Object-Role Modeling into Situated-Object-Behavior Modeling with Metapattern

 

[S]till popular modeling methods start from assuming self-contained entities, or objects. It follows that a particular object’s behaviors (in a more static sense, also read: properties) need to be thought of as generally, absolutely valid. Simply put, object equals its behavior.
Such methods are adequate for modeling separate systems, each independently facilitating a narrow set of tasks corresponding with unambiguous behaviors. (Corollary: Make the universe small enough, and whatever discourse stops.)

in: note 56.5

 

[A]ttempts at modifying self-containment of objects were, and continue to be, made, for example object-role modeling. While offering some improvements, it takes the radical situationism of Metapattern to secure benefits.

in: note 56.5

 

I prefer […] present[ing] Metapattern […] on its own — terms for — concepts, and only subsequently showing how it covers earlier modeling methods/languages through posing particular constraints[.]

in: note 71.10

 

As far as I understand ORM, it remains fixed on objects. Compared with, say, classic OO, ORM is already far more flexible. For the role-aspect makes it other-object oriented, too. That way, ORM is about the role of one object as related to the role of one other object, or the respective roles of more other objects.
What may cause confusion is the term ontology. What I take ontology to mean in a philosophical sense, and that is also how I consider the axioms aka ontology for Metapattern, is the most fundamental idea of what constitutes reality (and as such simultaneously offering a general concept of reality). As such, ORM’s ontology is still atomist, which severely limits flexibility. For objects nevertheless come first. And each object ‘has’ roles for relating to other objects (with those other objects ‘in return’ fitted with roles, too). Based on that ontology you can draw up models. Does Halpin perhaps call — some of those — models ontologies? Again, that is not what I understand by ontology. To me, they are also just models.
As you have gathered from my comparison of Metapattern with ORM, and I believe I have been quite fair, the respective ontologies — in the philosophical sense — differ. Yet, ORM comes quite close, as I have tried to demonstrate through proposing constraints. What ORM forces upon the modeler, however, is specifying all objects pertaining to mutually relevant roles. With n-ary relationships, I find overview is soon lost. A model therefore doesn’t scale easily. ORM has not purposely been designed for use at the scale of integrated order.
Instead, Metapattern principle of differentiation is binary. For behavior it is object-in-situation, corresponding in a model with signature-in-context for — identifying — description. On this binary principle rests the possibility for limitless recursion. Thus, with Metapattern a model scales almost naturally.

in: note 71.10

 

I certainly agree that ORM improves upon classic object orientation by insisting on roles and thereby allowing for already a large degree of relativity (accompanied by differentiation). Its philosophical ontology remains atomist, though. And for that reason I also don’t see how ORM really differs from entity-relationship modeling with no attributes allowed.

in: note 71.13

 

With ORM, as I understand it, an object’s behavior, i.e. both static and dynamic properties, is differentiated through role-attribution. And for its roles, an object is taken to be different from other objects. So to speak in between objects stand one or more of their role-aggregates[. …] When I am right about the recursion ORM allows, it can be expressed with Metapattern as a retyping of — an instance of — role-aggregate, or some subset of such an aggregate, as — an instance of — an object[. …] This seems to me all of ORM’s ontology. […] Now, Metapattern’s principle of describing an object’s situational behaviors does not take an object to be different from the situation it behaves in, but as part of it (just like other objects may be part of it, too). For example, while people playing a tennis match are indeed called opponents of each other, it is of course the whole match-situation, including spectators et cetera, in which they — and the spectators et cetera, for that matter — behave. […] Including retyping for recursion, [… w]ith Metapattern, object and situation are relative concepts, though. [… A] horizon […] set[s] a model’s boundary for such relativity by conflating — what are considered for the model — as the most encompassing both object and situation.

in: note 71.17

 

As I see it, so-called mind mapping may help to associate concepts, but it doesn’t provide control for disambiguation required for an integrated order. For it simply lacks the overriding contextual constraint. Somewhat similar to ORM, indeed when adding that constraint, it more or less turns into Metapattern, too. However, the paradigm shift away from atomism towards interdependence is paramount, and cannot be demonstrated, supported et cetera continuing to use what traditionally serves small-scale, stand-alone applications.

in: note 71.21

 

With object-role modeling, such respective roles are combined to form a relationship. In actual fact, I would say, there are different personae at stake (for that is precisely why they were constituted as such; but only widening the scope can bring tis out). Each persona can subsequently participate ‘more or less’ on its own in all sorts of events, only when need be — through yet another event — brought into explicit involvement — again — with the persona, or personae, it was constituted along with.

in: note 71.30