Introducing EMont with help of a case

Versie van 9 okt 2016 om 17:01 (brontekst bekijken) HansB (Overleg | bijdragen) (Label: visualeditor) ← Oudere bewerking		Huidige versie van 6 dec 2016 om 17:38 (brontekst bekijken) Gabrielle (Overleg | bijdragen) (Label: visualeditor)
(46 tussenliggende versies door 2 gebruikers niet weergegeven)
Regel 1:		Regel 1:
−	The basic elements of modeling with EM<sub>ont</sub> are introduced by focusing on the knowing-how knowledge associated with (human) activities, and in particular on modeling worldviews. The most elements of EM<sub>ont</sub> will be explained with help of a fictitious and simplified situation of counteracting a flooding disaster.	+	EM<sub>ont</sub> describes and assesses knowing-how knowledge (expertise, behavior and (non-)human activities) and worldviews. The ontology consists of seven modeling elements, which will be introduced shortly with help of the fictitious and simplified situation of people counteracting a flooding disaster.
−	== Applying the PQR formula to describe human behavior (expertise) ==	+	== Capturing activities with the PQR formula ==
−	In the Expertise Management Methodology, human behavior is defined as ‘a human activity system’. The human activity system as well as other types of actors (e.g. machinery) are modeled by applying the PQR formula. The PQR formula is pivotal to EM<sub>ont</sub> as it concisely captures the notion of nested cognitive patterns of human behavior: activities executed for dealing with particular circumstances, which is motivated by someone’s worldview. The PQR formula reads like a sentence:<blockquote>Do '''P''' by a '''Q''' in order to achieve '''R'''.</blockquote>The letters P, Q and R do not resemble anything, except for being subsequent letters in the alphabet. A specific meaning, however, is attached to these letters:	+	In EMM human behavior is defined as 'human activity systems’. Human activity systems, as well as activities of other kinds of actors (e.g. machinery), can be modeled with help of the PQR formula. This formula originates from the Soft Systems Methodology, and has to be applied as a root definition: a statement written in a few sentences capturing the intention of someone’s worldview. It concisely captures (human) activities executed to deal with particular circumstances which are motivated by the actors' worldview. The PQR formula is pivotal to EM<sub>ont</sub>. The letters P, Q and R do not resemble anything, except for being subsequent letters in the alphabet. A specific meaning, however, is attached to these letters:
	{| class="wikitable"		{| class="wikitable"
	!PQR		!PQR
−	!Meaning	+	! colspan="3" |Meaning
	|-		|-
	|P		|P
−	|What? What activity are we going to do, perform, execute or what process is going to happen?	+	|What?
		+	|Activity
		+	|What activity are we going to do, perform, execute or what process is going to happen?
	|-		|-
	|Q		|Q
−	|How? In what way are we going to do it?	+	|How?
		+	|Sub-activity
		+	|In what way are we going to do it?
	|-		|-
	|R		|R
−	|Why? What goal do we want to achieve?	+	|Why?
		+	|Goal
		+	|What goal do we want to achieve?
	|}		|}
−	Applying the PQR formula touches upon expertise or know-how knowledge in the sense that an expert can apply the right patterns almost without consciously thinking. Based on his experience, an expert knows intuitively what to do in specific situations.
−	[[Bestand:Flooding.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|475x475px|Example 1: Application of the PQR formula: Counteracting a disaster.]]
−	If a disaster strikes, then you should counteract (P - What) to save yourself and your relatives’ lives (R - Why). Then the question becomes: How (Q) do we save lives? Usually, there are several options, that is, particular ways to achieve the desired goal. One option is to fight (Q1) the disaster, another one is to evacuate (Q2) the endangered area. Which one to choose depends on the circumstances, but both can contribute positively to achieving the desired goal of saving lives (R).	+	The PQR formula reads like a sentence:<blockquote>Do '''P''' by a '''Q''' in order to achieve '''R'''.</blockquote>Applying the PQR formula touches upon the expertise or knowing-how knowledge of an expert, who, based on his experience, intuitively knows what to do in specific situations. In other words, an expert applies the right activity patterns almost without consciously thinking.
−	The PQR formula originates from the Soft Systems Methodology where it is applied as a root definition: a statement written in a few sentences capturing the intention of someone’s worldview. The PQR formula can be applied recursively. A Q (How) can be decomposed in more specific or diverse Q's (How's). Continuing example 1 about encountering a disaster: the evacuation activity can be subdivided in evacuation by car (Q2,1) or by public transport (Q2,2). Hence, evacuation activity Q2 gets the status of the activity P (What) for its constituents. Generalizing from example 1: by applying the PQR formula recursively, we can model an experts’ knowledge, that is, his behavioral patterns, at any desired level of detail. Just like activities (P), goals (R) can be decomposed in sub-goals as well.	+	The PQR formula in the case of counteracting a disaster (see figure 1) looks like: <blockquote>You can '''counteract the disaster''' (P - what) by, depending on the circumstances, '''fighting''' it (Q1 - how) or '''evacuating''' (Q2 - how) in order '''to save your and your relatives' lives''' (R - why).</blockquote>[[Bestand:Flooding.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|448x448px|'''Figure 1.''' Counteracting a disaster.]]
−	== Situations (PQR's in a particular context) ==	+	The PQR formula can be applied recursively. A How (Q) can be decomposed in more specific or diverse How's (Q's). To continue from the example in figure 1: the evacuation activity can be subdivided into evacuation by car (Q2,1) or by public transport (Q2,2). Hence, the evacuation activity (Q2) gets the status of an activity (P) for its constituents.
−	A situation is a network of actors, whether human or not, brought together to accomplish goals. Their goals may be shared or not shared. Technically, a situation is modeled as a context and the actors in the situation subsequently are modeled as sub-contexts.
−	[[Bestand:Resilience example context v 20140624.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|835x835px|Example 2: A situation consisting of contexts and sub-contexts.]]
−	The main context, i.e. situation, in example 2 is “Community resilience”. Within this situation, the community as a whole tries to cope with disturbances (what) by minimizing the effect of disturbances (main goal). From this main goal sub-goals, such as “Saving your and your relatives lives”, are derived. The overall goal can also be seen as a ‘hook’ to which more specific sub-goals can be attached. The same applies to the activity “Coping with disturbances”: it is a hook to attach more specific activities which altogether contribute to the main goal. The main activity and main goal are addressing what should be done, not yet how it can be done.
−	=== Specific roles in specific situations ===	+	Generalizing from the example in figure 1: by applying the PQR formula recursively, we can model an experts’ knowledge, that is, his behavioral patterns, at any desired level of detail. The main activity (P) and main goal (R) address what should be done in a situation, they however do not yet specify how (Q) it can be done. Consequently, activities usually consist of more specific sub-activities (Q's), which altogether contribute to the main activity (P). Just like activities, goals can be decomposed into sub-goals as well.
−	Depending on the situation, humans perform specific actions to achieve the required goals. This notion is modeled as sub-roles in situations. By exploring example 2 on the situation of Community resilience a few sub-contexts were added, e.g. representing roles (sub-contexts) of Rescue worker and Civilian. From example 2 you can see how these two roles can be expressed in specific sub-situations, and in this particular example: in the situation of “Flooding”. In the situation “Flooding”, a Civilian has to deal with flooding. This may sound obvious, and it is, but something interesting is going on. The sub-context “Civilian:Civilian dealing with flooding” means that “Civilian dealing with flooding” is a sub-context of “Civilian”. At the same time, the sub-context “Civilian dealing with flooding” is also a sub-context of “Flooding”. This is just as the Civilian is contained in the sub-situation “Flooding” (see illustration of example 2). Thus, a sub-context may be captured in more than one context. This reflects the notion that humans play specific roles in specific situations.	+	== Activities in contexts ==
		+	A situation is a network of actors, whether human or not, brought together to accomplishing shared or non-shared goals. These situations can also be called 'nested cognitive patterns of human activity systems'. In the situation “Community resilience” (figure 2) a community tries to cope with disturbances (main activity - what) by minimizing the effect of disturbances (main goal - why), including the more specific and nested situation "Flooding". Technically, the situation is modeled as a context, usually built up from different sub-contexts. The sub-context always has at least one 'super context'. Subsequently, roles or responsibilities of actors in situations are modeled as (sub-)contexts as well. Specific roles apply to specific situations. For example, the role “Civilian:Civilian dealing with flooding” shows that the role “Civilian dealing with flooding” is a sub-context of the situation “Flooding” and at the same time it is a sub-context of the role “Civilian”. Thus, a sub-context can be derived from more than one super context. [[Bestand:Resilience example context v 20140624.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|1039x1039px|'''Figure 2.''' The situation "Community resilience" consisting of sub-contexts like "Flooding" (sub-situation) and "Civilian" (role).]]
−	To conclude, it can be observed that a context is used to model situations comprising of sub-situations and roles. A role in its turn may be a situation for its constituents. That is, a role can be seen as a situation made up of sub-roles and sub-situations. A typical example is an organization which has employees engaged in specific activities. For an employee, the organization may appear as a situation rather than a role. So it is all a matter of perspective from which we can abstract away by using the general concept of nested concepts.	+	To conclude, it can be observed that a context is used to model situations comprising of sub-situations and roles. In turn, a role may be regarded as a situation for its constituents. That is, a role can be seen as a situation made up of sub-roles and sub-situations. Another typical example of a context presented as a role is an organization with its specific objective or responsibility where its employees are engaged in specific activities. From the perspective of an employee however, the organization may appear as a situation to operate in rather than a role. So it is a matter of perspective from which we can abstract away by using the general concept of nested contexts.
−	== Interdependencies (conditions) ==	+	== Interdependencies and relations between elements ==
		+	A situation is characterized by the interactions between actors and one or more conditions. Conditions determine how and how well the actors in a situation interact and execute activities, but conditions can also be influenced by the behavior of actors. A condition is often defined in a qualified way, e.g. “the availability of rescue workers”, or “ sufficient supply of evacuation resources”. As a result, a condition can also be regarded as an internal system indicator.
−	Actors are not acting alone, they interact with each other. How and how well they interact is determined by the conditions present in the situation in which the actors are interacting. A condition describes the state of a situation, which may be influenced by the behavior of an actor. A condition is often defined in a qualified way, e.g. “the availability of rescue workers”, or “a sufficient supply of evacuation resources”. A condition can also be regarded as an internal system indicator6. A collection of conditions characterizes a system.	+	Typically, a goal and condition are related, expressed by the relation “contributes to”: a goal contributes to a condition. In figure 3, the goal “Right resources in the right place in time” contributes positively to the condition “Evacuation resources”. In other words, the condition is an indication of the extent to which the goal has been achieved. Note, a goal and a condition are deliberately modeled as different elements, because in real situations it frequently occurs that achieving one goal (contributing to a condition) can be undermined by achieving another goal (contributing to the same condition), e.g. the goal of a local government to mainly invest in and distribute inflatable boats for evacuation.
−	Typically, a goal is related to a condition: a goal “contributes to” to the condition. “Contributes to” is an expression of the type of relation / interdependency the goal and condition have. In example 3, the goal “Right resources in the right place in time” contributes positively to the condition “Evacuation resources”. In other words, the condition is an indication of the extent to which the goal has been achieved.	+	[[Bestand:Resilience example condition v 20140624.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|873x873px|'''Figure 3.''' Goals contributing to conditions.]]
−	Note that a goal and a condition have deliberately been modeled as separate concepts. It is quite well possible, and in real situations frequently the case, that achieving one goal (contributing to a condition) is undermined by the achieving another goal (contributing to the same condition).	+	The examples in figures 3 and 4 show the type and quality of relations between activities, goals and conditions.
−	[[Bestand:Resilience example condition v 20140624.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|873x873px|Example 3: Goals contributing to conditions.]]	+	* Dependency: an activity may depend on a condition, as is the case in figure 3: evacuation with public transport "depends on" the availability of evacuation resources. Dependency between an activity and a condition shows that the extent to which the activity can be executed depends on how well this activity is 'facilitated' by other activities contributing positively to the condition the activity depends on (see figure 4).
		+	* Contribution: a goal contributes to a condition. The relation “contributes to” is not as strong as the relation “depends on”. A dependency can be expressed as “contributes to” for modeling situations in which the relation between an activity and a condition is weaker.
−	=== Type and quality of relations ===	+	[[Bestand:Interacting elements.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|597x597px|'''Figure 4.''' Interacting elements.]]
−	Examples 3 and 4 are used to describe the type and quality of relations between activities, goals and conditions.
−	* Dependency: Activities may depend on a condition, as is the case in example 3: evacuation with public transport. Dependency between an activity and condition states the extent to which an activity can be performed depending on how well this activity is facilitated by other activities expressed in terms of one or more conditions.
−	* Contribution: A goal contributes to a condition. The relation “contributes to” is not as strong as the relation “depends on”. A dependency can be expressed as “contributes to” for modeling situations in which the relation between an activity and a condition is weaker.
−	Example 4: General pattern of relations between activities, goals and conditions.	+	Regarding the general pattern of relations as shown in figure 4: the condition establishes an implicit relation between Activity A and Activity B. There is, however, no need to make the dotted relations between Activity A and B explicit.
−	Note regarding the general pattern of relations (example 4): by applying a condition a relation is established between Activity A and Activity B. This is an implicit relation, as by means of the condition the relation between Activity A and B is (already) established. There is no need to make the relation between A and B (as indicated by the dotted lines in example 4) explicit.	+	== Worldviews of actors involved ==
		+	Regarding roles we have up to now focused only on one single way to carry out activities related to that role. However, people can carry out an activity in various ways. These different approaches originate from the variety people and their worldviews. And vice-versa: someone's worldview can vary depending on the situation he is engaged in. Therefore, different worldviews will have to be considered in modeling activities. A worldview is considered a fixed idea. Therefore, as a modeling element it is called a belief. A belief is similar to a condition, but in contrast, a belief cannot be changed within the system itself.
−	== World view and beliefs ==	+	Worldviews can be included in the model similarly to the way contexts were used to model roles in specific situations. Figure 5 illustrates a situation with different worldviews: a Civilian can deal with flooding by leading the neighborhood and helping his neighbors or by dealing with flooding on its own. The sub-situation “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own” includes the belief “Do not trust the government”, which means that this particular civilian does not trust the government to organize public transport as evacuation means and will evacuate only with his own car.[[Bestand:Resilience example worldview v 20140624.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|967x967px|'''Figure 5.''' Worldviews and beliefs.]]
−	Up to now we have focused on a single person who, depending on the situation, carried out certain activities. However, not everyone will carry out this particular activity in the same way. These different approaches originate from the different worldviews people have. And vice-versa: the worldview of a single person may vary depending on the situation he is engaged in. Therefore, different worldviews will have to be considered, which can be included in the model similarly to how contexts were used to model roles in specific situations (§2.2). Example 5 illustrates different worldviews: a Civilian can deal with flooding by helping his neighbors or deal with the disaster on his own.
−	A belief is considered a fixed idea, which defines a worldview. A belief is similar to a condition, but in contrast, a belief cannot be changed within the system itself. In example 5 the context “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own” includes the belief “Do not trust the government”: this particular civilian does not expect anything positive from the government, no matter how hard the government tries.	+	== The main scheme of Community resilience ==
		+	Creating clarity in a complex activity model, such as the one about community resilience (see figure 6, composed from figures 2, 3 and 5), can be done firstly by developing a main scheme presenting the big, more generic picture including only the most important situations (sub-contexts, or so-called ‘hooks’). Details of the different sub-contexts can be provided only when 'zooming in', thus by developing separate schemes that describe the sub-context selected from the main scheme.
−	== Refining and creating clarity in the complex model ==	+	To the sub-contexts as shown in figures 2 and 3 information can be added and removed, see figures 5 and 6. For instance, specific roles at the bottom of the scheme such as “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own” and “Civilian leading the neighborhood to deal with flooding” are derived from the role “Civilian dealing with flooding”. Modeling elements can be discarded when they are not of use or add value to a particular sub-context. For instance, the context “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own”, the activity “Fight” has been removed. The octagonal shape of certain modeling elements indicates that this element occurs other contexts as well. In figures 5 and 6 the activities "Fight" and “Evacuate” occur elsewhere in het context “Flooding” as well.[[Bestand:Resilience example v 20140623.jpg|gecentreerd|miniatuur|969x969px|'''Figure 6.''' An overview of the situation Community resilience including the main contexts and other EM<sub>ont</sub> modeling elements.]]
−	Creating clarity in a complex model can be done firstly by developing a main scheme presenting the big picture which includes only the most important situations (sub-contexts). Details of the different situations are provided only when “zooming in” to these, thus by developing separate schemes that only describe the situation selected. The main scheme therefore provides a more generic basis (or the so-called ‘hooks’) for deriving sub-contexts to which, depending on the type of situation you are interested to have a detailed look at, information can be added.
−
−	To the sub-contexts generated in examples 2 and 3 information can be added and removed (see example 5). For instance: specialized roles, such as “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own” and “Civilian leading the neighborhood to deal with flooding” are derived from the role “Civilian dealing with flooding”. Modeling elements can be discarded when they are not of use or add value to a particular sub-context. For instance, the context “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own”, the activity “Fight” has been removed.
−
−	The octagonal shape indicates that this modeling element happens to be used in other contexts too. In example 5 “Evacuate” is an activity occurring elsewhere in het context “Flooding” as well.
−
−	Example 5: Adding and removing information.
−
−	All EMont modeling elements, as discussed in the previous paragraphs, brought together in one scheme:
	== Concluding remarks ==		== Concluding remarks ==
−	The strength of modeling complex situations with EMont lies in putting patterns of human/non-human (actors) behavior (PQR’s) in a context and applying these recursively. A context or situation is key to modeling roles and interactions of actors, including their different worldviews, in that particular context. The example of a flooding disaster is a simplified and incomplete illustration of a real situation. Modeling real situations can reflect reality in a comprehensive manner, but the models can also become very large. Applying contexts supports separating the main situation or processes from more detailed descriptions of the individual situations.	+	The strength of modeling complex situations with EM<sub>ont</sub> lies in putting patterns of (non-)human behavior, modeled with the PQR formula, in a context and applying these recursively. A context is key to modeling situations or roles, related activities and interactions of actors with different worldviews. The example of the flooding disaster used as a simplified and incomplete illustration of a real situation. Real situations can be modeled in a comprehensive manner, but the models can also become very complex and big. Detailed descriptions of the sub-situations can be made by dividing a situation into sub-contexts and describing them in separate activity models.
−	Subjects not discussed in this introduction to modeling with EMont include documenting good and bad practices, a sequence of activities (‘composed activities’), and modeling conceptual knowledge and its connection to PQR’s in a context. These subjects makes modeling with EMont more comprehensive, yet does not imply the introduction of significantly different elements to EMont.	+	Subjects not discussed in this introduction to modeling with EM<sub>ont</sub> include documenting good and bad practices, a sequence of activities ('composed activities'), and modeling conceptual knowledge and its connection to PQR’s in a context. These subjects makes modeling with EM<sub>ont</sub> more comprehensive, yet does not imply introducing significant different elements to EM<sub>ont</sub>.
	{{Light Context		{{Light Context
	|Supercontext=LC 00092		|Supercontext=LC 00092
	|Topcontext=PR SSM 00065		|Topcontext=PR SSM 00065
	|Context type=Situation		|Context type=Situation
−	|Heading=Introduction to EMont by example	+	|Heading=Introducing EMont with help of a case
	}}		}}

---

Huidige versie van 6 dec 2016 om 17:38

EM_ont describes and assesses knowing-how knowledge (expertise, behavior and (non-)human activities) and worldviews. The ontology consists of seven modeling elements, which will be introduced shortly with help of the fictitious and simplified situation of people counteracting a flooding disaster.

Capturing activities with the PQR formula

In EMM human behavior is defined as 'human activity systems’. Human activity systems, as well as activities of other kinds of actors (e.g. machinery), can be modeled with help of the PQR formula. This formula originates from the Soft Systems Methodology, and has to be applied as a root definition: a statement written in a few sentences capturing the intention of someone’s worldview. It concisely captures (human) activities executed to deal with particular circumstances which are motivated by the actors' worldview. The PQR formula is pivotal to EM_ont. The letters P, Q and R do not resemble anything, except for being subsequent letters in the alphabet. A specific meaning, however, is attached to these letters:

PQR	Meaning
P	What?	Activity	What activity are we going to do, perform, execute or what process is going to happen?
Q	How?	Sub-activity	In what way are we going to do it?
R	Why?	Goal	What goal do we want to achieve?

The PQR formula reads like a sentence:

Do P by a Q in order to achieve R.

Applying the PQR formula touches upon the expertise or knowing-how knowledge of an expert, who, based on his experience, intuitively knows what to do in specific situations. In other words, an expert applies the right activity patterns almost without consciously thinking. The PQR formula in the case of counteracting a disaster (see figure 1) looks like:

You can counteract the disaster (P - what) by, depending on the circumstances, fighting it (Q1 - how) or evacuating (Q2 - how) in order to save your and your relatives' lives (R - why).

The PQR formula can be applied recursively. A How (Q) can be decomposed in more specific or diverse How's (Q's). To continue from the example in figure 1: the evacuation activity can be subdivided into evacuation by car (Q2,1) or by public transport (Q2,2). Hence, the evacuation activity (Q2) gets the status of an activity (P) for its constituents.

Generalizing from the example in figure 1: by applying the PQR formula recursively, we can model an experts’ knowledge, that is, his behavioral patterns, at any desired level of detail. The main activity (P) and main goal (R) address what should be done in a situation, they however do not yet specify how (Q) it can be done. Consequently, activities usually consist of more specific sub-activities (Q's), which altogether contribute to the main activity (P). Just like activities, goals can be decomposed into sub-goals as well.

Activities in contexts

A situation is a network of actors, whether human or not, brought together to accomplishing shared or non-shared goals. These situations can also be called 'nested cognitive patterns of human activity systems'. In the situation “Community resilience” (figure 2) a community tries to cope with disturbances (main activity - what) by minimizing the effect of disturbances (main goal - why), including the more specific and nested situation "Flooding". Technically, the situation is modeled as a context, usually built up from different sub-contexts. The sub-context always has at least one 'super context'. Subsequently, roles or responsibilities of actors in situations are modeled as (sub-)contexts as well. Specific roles apply to specific situations. For example, the role “Civilian:Civilian dealing with flooding” shows that the role “Civilian dealing with flooding” is a sub-context of the situation “Flooding” and at the same time it is a sub-context of the role “Civilian”. Thus, a sub-context can be derived from more than one super context.

To conclude, it can be observed that a context is used to model situations comprising of sub-situations and roles. In turn, a role may be regarded as a situation for its constituents. That is, a role can be seen as a situation made up of sub-roles and sub-situations. Another typical example of a context presented as a role is an organization with its specific objective or responsibility where its employees are engaged in specific activities. From the perspective of an employee however, the organization may appear as a situation to operate in rather than a role. So it is a matter of perspective from which we can abstract away by using the general concept of nested contexts.

Interdependencies and relations between elements

A situation is characterized by the interactions between actors and one or more conditions. Conditions determine how and how well the actors in a situation interact and execute activities, but conditions can also be influenced by the behavior of actors. A condition is often defined in a qualified way, e.g. “the availability of rescue workers”, or “ sufficient supply of evacuation resources”. As a result, a condition can also be regarded as an internal system indicator.

Typically, a goal and condition are related, expressed by the relation “contributes to”: a goal contributes to a condition. In figure 3, the goal “Right resources in the right place in time” contributes positively to the condition “Evacuation resources”. In other words, the condition is an indication of the extent to which the goal has been achieved. Note, a goal and a condition are deliberately modeled as different elements, because in real situations it frequently occurs that achieving one goal (contributing to a condition) can be undermined by achieving another goal (contributing to the same condition), e.g. the goal of a local government to mainly invest in and distribute inflatable boats for evacuation.

The examples in figures 3 and 4 show the type and quality of relations between activities, goals and conditions.

• Dependency: an activity may depend on a condition, as is the case in figure 3: evacuation with public transport "depends on" the availability of evacuation resources. Dependency between an activity and a condition shows that the extent to which the activity can be executed depends on how well this activity is 'facilitated' by other activities contributing positively to the condition the activity depends on (see figure 4).
• Contribution: a goal contributes to a condition. The relation “contributes to” is not as strong as the relation “depends on”. A dependency can be expressed as “contributes to” for modeling situations in which the relation between an activity and a condition is weaker.

Regarding the general pattern of relations as shown in figure 4: the condition establishes an implicit relation between Activity A and Activity B. There is, however, no need to make the dotted relations between Activity A and B explicit.

Worldviews of actors involved

Regarding roles we have up to now focused only on one single way to carry out activities related to that role. However, people can carry out an activity in various ways. These different approaches originate from the variety people and their worldviews. And vice-versa: someone's worldview can vary depending on the situation he is engaged in. Therefore, different worldviews will have to be considered in modeling activities. A worldview is considered a fixed idea. Therefore, as a modeling element it is called a belief. A belief is similar to a condition, but in contrast, a belief cannot be changed within the system itself.

Worldviews can be included in the model similarly to the way contexts were used to model roles in specific situations. Figure 5 illustrates a situation with different worldviews: a Civilian can deal with flooding by leading the neighborhood and helping his neighbors or by dealing with flooding on its own. The sub-situation “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own” includes the belief “Do not trust the government”, which means that this particular civilian does not trust the government to organize public transport as evacuation means and will evacuate only with his own car.

The main scheme of Community resilience

Creating clarity in a complex activity model, such as the one about community resilience (see figure 6, composed from figures 2, 3 and 5), can be done firstly by developing a main scheme presenting the big, more generic picture including only the most important situations (sub-contexts, or so-called ‘hooks’). Details of the different sub-contexts can be provided only when 'zooming in', thus by developing separate schemes that describe the sub-context selected from the main scheme.

To the sub-contexts as shown in figures 2 and 3 information can be added and removed, see figures 5 and 6. For instance, specific roles at the bottom of the scheme such as “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own” and “Civilian leading the neighborhood to deal with flooding” are derived from the role “Civilian dealing with flooding”. Modeling elements can be discarded when they are not of use or add value to a particular sub-context. For instance, the context “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own”, the activity “Fight” has been removed. The octagonal shape of certain modeling elements indicates that this element occurs other contexts as well. In figures 5 and 6 the activities "Fight" and “Evacuate” occur elsewhere in het context “Flooding” as well.

Concluding remarks

The strength of modeling complex situations with EM_ont lies in putting patterns of (non-)human behavior, modeled with the PQR formula, in a context and applying these recursively. A context is key to modeling situations or roles, related activities and interactions of actors with different worldviews. The example of the flooding disaster used as a simplified and incomplete illustration of a real situation. Real situations can be modeled in a comprehensive manner, but the models can also become very complex and big. Detailed descriptions of the sub-situations can be made by dividing a situation into sub-contexts and describing them in separate activity models.

Subjects not discussed in this introduction to modeling with EM_ont include documenting good and bad practices, a sequence of activities ('composed activities'), and modeling conceptual knowledge and its connection to PQR’s in a context. These subjects makes modeling with EM_ont more comprehensive, yet does not imply introducing significant different elements to EM_ont.