A
B
G
N
M
P
Z
T
X
Y
© Roger M Tagg 2007, revised 2010
In FROLIO, a relationship is not just between two things. Relationships, in general, have 3 or more different roles associated with them. The example below shows the standard FROLIO Relationship icon surrounded by a number of “sockets”. Each socket represents a particular role.
|
|
A |
B |
C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I |
|
M |
||
|
P |
|
|
|
Z |
|
T |
|
|
||
|
Code |
Role |
Comments (question to be asked) |
Icon in the diagram above |
|
A |
Primary thing, or thing of main concern |
What concept, object, or living thing are we primarily talking about? |
In this case we have a young man buying flowers for his lady. |
|
B |
Secondary thing (e.g. component or result) |
What thing is this relationship is primarily concerned with linking A to |
The icon represents a particular bunch of flowers, maybe notional in terms of real flower stems to begin with, but resolved later. |
|
C |
Beneficiary |
For the benefit of what other person, group or abstract
concept |
The lucky lady may not be identified until the salesperson
asks for the delivery address. |
|
G1 |
Person/Group instigating the action |
As requested or ordered by whom, or by what group or agency? |
In this example the hopeful chap may instigate things himself, but in other relationships he might be acting on behalf of someone else. Maybe our chap isn’t himself the suitor! |
|
G2 |
Person/Group responsible for action |
What person or group takes responsibility, to the instigator? |
In this example such a role might be the flower shop representative. |
|
G3-GN |
Person/Group/Machine involved in action |
What other person(s) or machines collaborate? |
Other persons involved might include the delivery van driver. |
|
I |
Instrument |
Using what instruments or materials? |
The “spanner” icon represents any “tool” – it may not be ideal in this case, where the instrument might be “Interflora” or local delivery van. |
|
M |
Method or Process |
What method, procedure(s), guideline, recipe etc is followed? |
The “process pattern” icon suggests a series of actions, e.g. buying the flowers, and later delivering them to an address and then the recipient. |
|
N |
Literal name |
What name(s) is used to describe this relationship? (could
be many sub-roles, e.g. for language or symbol system) |
The name of this relationship type might be “buys flowers”, but this instance may need
identification of several roles to distinguish it from any other
flower-buying. |
|
P0-P2 |
Place (at/from/to) |
What place(s) is involved (could be 3 sub-roles) |
The icon shows a GPS device. Places of interest might include the location where the relationship is created (P0), and also from (P1) and to (P2) – and maybe more. |
|
T0-T2 |
Time (at/from/to) |
What time is involved (could be 3 sub-roles) |
The clock icon indicates a time (T0) at which the relationship is established, but the relationship may in general apply from one date/time (T1) to another (T2). |
|
X |
Context |
In what context, subject or topic are we considering this relationship? |
The “school subject” icon shows “Arts” here, but in this example the context might be “courting etiquette”. |
|
Y |
Theory, Belief System |
According to what theory or belief system? |
The “ |
|
Z |
Person/Group alleging the relationship |
What person or group is the authority for this relationship being proposed? |
The “author” icon implies that this relationship is “alleged” by this person or group (maybe a witness in the flower shop?). |
Some readers might remark that all the roles from I onwards are not really participants in the relationship, but simply attributes of the relationship. However part of the purpose of FROLIO is to make sure that these aspects are not forgotten. The following points of justification may explain this stance.
| Role | Justification |
|---|---|
| I (Instrument, tool) | A relationship may or may not involve an instrument or method, but most of those concerned with Transformation certainly do. |
| M (Method or procedure) | |
| N (relationship Name) | This is needed to cater for the fact that a relationship is itself an abstract concept, and could be involved in relationships itself. For example "is a car part of" is an instance of "is a part of". |
| P (Place) | These roles are maybe not as central as the things that are primarily related, but relationships can be true at some times and in some places, but not in others |
| T (Time) | |
| X (conteXt) | People often make statements (or ask questions) which make sense in one context but not in others. |
| Y (theorY) | Many relationships that are asserted depend on acceptance of some theory or model. If one person is asserting the relationship to someone else, that other person may not accept the theory or model. |
| Z (author - "seZ who?") | I think it is of paramount importance who is alleging any relationship. There is a big difference between a relationship that I allege in casual conversation, and one that is true by definition or is the result of universal consensus. However as is now accepted, the relationship "the sun orbits the earth" was the consensus before Copernicus - so consensus may need revising or correcting. |
All the same, I think that there ARE some genuine attributes of Relationships. The ones that are particularly interesting are:
It is interesting to note that some languages can represent quite a few roles by using “cases” of nouns (German has 4, Latin 6, Russian 8 - including an "instrumental" case). English doesn’t have cases, but uses prepositions like “to”, “at” and “by”. However these prepositions, like those in some other languages, carry multiple meanings in different contexts (e.g. at, for, in). Japanese is similar, but it uses post-positions tacked on to the end of words.
The example above is a very simple one. It could in many languages be represented by a transitive verb with a subject and object. However these situations are not the ones in which misunderstandings and hi-jacking of language is most likely to occur. Claims, statements and questions involving mainly abstract concepts are the major problem. The primary thing will as likely as not be an abstract or physical object, rather than a human or intelligent animal. The two roles where humans are most certain to be involved are the “agent” group (G) and the “author” (Z).
It is interesting to note that some languages can represent quite a few roles by using “cases” of verbs (German has 4, Latin 6, Russian 8). English doesn’t have cases, but uses prepositions like “to”, “at” and “by” – however these prepositions carry multiple meanings in different contexts. Japanese is similar, but it uses post-positions tacked on to the end of words.
We also need to note that, within any role, it may be possible for more than one instance of the element type to be involved in each instance of the relationship.
Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 27
If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au