[great-users] negative application condition

[Aditya Agrawal]

Hi Arda and Feng,

I ran some experiments and realized the following.

1. The pattern arda drew does not work. However, it is not because the class
called feature is negated. Because that were the case then for your example
the output would show classE but it doesn’t.

R-->A--1->F<-1-->C
    |           ^   
    |-----0-----|

This pattern yields the wrong result.


2. A pattern of the form 

R-->A--1->B
    |
    |--0->C

This pattern yields the right result.


>From my understanding the A-->C edge in the first case is handled in a
different part of the pattern matcher than the other edges and I guess we
may not be checking the 0 cardinality correctly there.

Thanks,
Adi


________________________________________
From: great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Feng Shi
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:47 AM
To: great-users
Subject: RE: [great-users] negative application condition

Hi, Arda,
 
I am not sure want you’re meaning the “feature”, is it another Class? I
could not open your transformation model and would you please send its xme
file to me?
 
Thanks,
Feng
 
-----Original Message-----
From: great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Arda
Göknil
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:00 AM
To: great-users
Subject: RE: [great-users] negative application condition
 
I set the pattern cardinalities of the connection element to "0" but it
negates the element not the association. I am sending my example. I want to
define a pattern that defines a Class A which aggregates Class B and a
feature but Class B should not have the feature of Class A. When I set the
pattern cardinality of the Connection element between the Class B and the
feature, it negates the feature, not the connection between them.
Thanks,
Arda

Aditya Agrawal <aditya.agrawal at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Arda,
 
In your pattern specification you can change the “pattern cardinality”
attribute even on the simple association between B and C. By simple
association I mean an association without a class. 
 
You can click in the line, change the attribute called “pattern cardinality
to ‘0’ or ‘-1’ “ 
 
I hope this helps.
 
Thanks,
Adi
 
________________________________________
From: great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Arda
Göknil
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:15 AM
To: A list for GReAT users to share bugs, fixes an d ideas
Subject: RE: [great-users] negative application condition
 
I could not write a good example. I mean, the meta association. I imagine 
the A, B and C classes are the meta classes and the association between them
are the meta association, there is not a meta class named Association. The
setting the pattern cardinality to "-1" is true if there is a Association
entity in the meta class.

Aditya Agrawal <aditya.agrawal at gmail.com> wrote: 
Hi Arda,
 
As far as I remember you can set the pattern cardinality on the association
between B and C to be “-1” instead of setting it on B. 
 
I don’t know if things have changed in the recent past but earlier the value
for negative condition used to be “0” not “-1”.
 
Could Attila or Feng please comment to this?
 
Thanks,
Adi
 
________________________________________
From: great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Arda
Göknil
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:14 AM
To: great-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: [great-users] negative application condition
 
Hi,
I have a question about the negative application condition in GREAT. In the
user manual, it is said that if you set the pattern cardinality to "-1", you
negate that element. but I want to negate the element for only one
association.
For example, in my pattern I have three classes: classA, classB and classC.
ClassA has a relation with ClassB and ClassC but I do not want ClassB to
have a relation with ClassC. I want to negate ClassC for the
association between ClassB and ClassC. But in my pattern if I set the
pattern cardinality to -1, I can not show the whole pattern in one rule. How
is it possible?
Regards,
 
Arda Goknil
________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
_______________________________________________
great-users mailing list
great-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/great-users
 
________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a
photo.
_______________________________________________
great-users mailing list
great-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/great-users
 
________________________________________
Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars
online search now 
________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Deneme.zip
Type: application/x-zip-compressed
Size: 91710 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/pipermail/great-users/attachments/20060203/7e360c5a/Deneme.bin