Modeling of objects, functions, and operations. Mereological relations between objects of this type
In previous articles I have nasobiral modeling of objects, types, and attributes.
→ Notions: set, the type attribute
→ How to confuse an analyst. Part one
→ How to confuse an analyst. Part two: what is domain modeling?
→ How to confuse an analyst. Part three. Verbs and numerals
We briefly touched on the life cycle of the object from the point of view of its transformation and transformation of our ideas about it.
→ How to confuse the analyst — 4. The probability and accuracy
Next, I began considering modeling operations, functions, and objects from a unified point of view.
→ How to confuse the analyst — 5. Conceptual framework
All of this is beyond the scope of modeling in the development of information systems, but for the decision of tasks of integration of different information systems through the creation of the adapter between them is extremely necessary.
To create the adapter we need to learn to model the same thing in different ways: as object and as an action. For philosophical thought is not new, because objects do not exist outside of time, and actions can't be done without objects. In fact, we have to look at the world like you see it on the Buddhists: the object and action are one and the same. The need for such an Outlook stems from the need to combine different perspectives on the same events. in this article I will review the possible representations of reality and mereological relations (the relations part-whole) between them.
the
Let them have hours. Bring three people and ask them to describe what they saw.
the
All three will be to describe one of the four-dimensional space-time object, but this will be done in different ways.
the
If we want to create an adapter that connects three different information systems, in each of which the same will be modeled as an object, operation or function, we must learn to change their point of view, and in the same volume to learn to see and object, function, and operation. For this we need to accept the idea that the object, the operation and function of the different descriptions of the same space-time volume.
Object, operation or function are present in human consciousness but do not exist in reality. Not in the sense of solipsism as it might think the reader (the real world exists), but in the sense of interpreting the world, because the object, the operation or function is different interpretations of the same space-time volume.
Modeling the reality, we can cope with the representation of reality in the form of objects, however, almost not able to work with representations of reality in the form of functions and operations. And the existing standards do not help us to figure it out. In this article I will consider the relationship between representation of reality in the form of the object, functions and operations.
The simulation begins with the description of four-dimensional space-time volume, the interpretation of which then engaged the analyst. To do this, we construct a model of the boundaries accounting for location in space and in time. For example, to describe the temporal boundaries used in the attributes "start date" and "completion date". After describing the volume of the analyst makes the interpretation of this volume.
the
To describe the design object model is built as a set of related objects – parts of the simulated object. The amount treated as an object is divided into parts, each of which is treated as an object.
the
When we treat the four-dimensional space-time functions, we focus on dynamics, which has the property of repeatability. For example, the function of demonstrating time dynamic, but the events that accompany this dynamics, belong to the same class – turn arrow at a specified angle (statics). That is, an invariant function is a class of observable events.
You often hear it said that the function of watches is to show time. This thesis is shared by object and function. In fact, and object, and the function is different interpretations of the same volume. Therefore, from the point of view of modelling it is correct to say that the amount treated as watch, also can be interpreted as the share of the current time, which is going on in this area of space. This thesis builds a rather bulky model, so analysts are often reduced to two objects – functions (demonstration time), the object (clock) and the relationships between them "takes". This reduces the amount of modeling, but stopping to think correctly. In the proposed interpretation model is symmetrical with respect any of the accounting objects, whether the object, function, or anything else. The symmetry of the model allows to build the adapter.
Functions are modeled using IDEF0 notation. This notation allows to model constructive division of function on the part functional structure. This is when the function is divided into parts, each of which is treated as a function. This model is often mistakenly called a process model.
In this notation it is possible to see the beginnings of modeling design functions as objects. This is the so-called "arrow bottom". But at this point, the notation is incomplete because it is not clear what these hands – whether of the temporal part of the participants, the interpretation of whether these parts (roles), whether the participants themselves. Therefore, we can say that the beginnings of the modeling, but the notation is incomplete. I'll explain this later in more detail.
the
When we treat the four-dimensional space-time as a transaction, we focus on the dynamics in which in the General case not invariant with respect to time, but it is invariant relative to the space in which the operation occurs. That is, operations occur in a certain volume, which from the point of view of the subject must be observed causal relationships.
Dynamics in the operation associated with the emergence and destruction of four-dimensional volumes. It can be amounts that are treated as status objects, the objects, and so on. Therefore, the model of the operation – lots of dates started and dates of completion of any four-dimensional volumes.
The operation should be distinguished from construction operations. Usually, the model of the operation know the specific model design. Common design operations are divided into two types. The first type of design – a description of its participants, and the second structure in the form of sub-operations associated temporal relationships (process). So often under the model operations understand the enumeration of its members, that is, its design in view of the participants. The reason for this kind of delusion has become the purpose of modeling. All the interesting causal relationships that led to the transaction, or an explanation of the changes. Causation may explain, referring either to the obvious role membership, or obvious sequence of sub-operations. This is done in two steps.
the
First, consider the design model of the operation in the form of the roles of the participants. To explain causality in a similar way, you need to specify the obvious participants, who will explain what is happening. For example, if we want to explain why the Apple fell to the Ground, as obvious participants in the operation of the fall will be: a temporal part of an Apple, playing the role of the body 1, the temporal part of the Earth, playing the role of the body 2, and the gravitational interaction between the bodies. We referred to the law of gravity and thus explained the fall of the object on the Ground. To model this kind of explanation is necessary at the first step is to list the volumes, which will be interpreted as temporal parts of objects, for which it is necessary to associate these volumes with the volumes which are treated as the Earth and the Apple. In the second step, to ascribe to this volume the role of parties: the role of the body 1 and body 2 in the law of universal gravitation. Then refer to the law and to the explanation. In this case, the model of causality is a role model, model – model performers of these roles. Very often you can find a situation when the model of participants and role model to confuse and dump everything in one pile.
Consider the model construction operations in a sequence of sub-operations. To explain causality in a similar way, you need to list under the obvious operation that will explain things. For example, to explain the reasons why as the application has been processed, it is necessary to consider the sequence of operations from receipt to archiving. Looking at this sequence, it is easy to understand why everyone is interested in the operation side, was satisfied. For this construction the sequence of operations and the connections between them. And here again two levels – the first level of temporal volumes and their position in space-time, the second interpretation of these volumes in the form of a transactions and explanation of causal relationships between them.
Until I saw the standards in which these levels would be clearly separated. Now the simulation volume and their interpretation lumped together. For example, often say that the process should be the result. But the result is the second level of the model. What is the first level in which there is a sequence, but there's no result, no explanation of causality? Because analysts are missing this level of modeling, they do not need to think of a name for this kind of objects. But, building a full model, we have these names to look for. Or I recently heard that the role of the business analyst is to help the business. But again, the second level of the model on the first level which is the activity of modeling, but there are no goals and causal relationships. And then to call the first level — is not clear.
Mixing these levels also contributes to the language and inherited by us from ancestors of mythical consciousness. When I read that the horse jumps, I can interpret this thesis in three different ways. I can imagine moving the object in the form of horses performing specific movements, can you imagine a mechanical system capable of producing such movements, and may consider mental functions of the horse. All three methods of representation have the same verb – to ride and no hint of differentiation. That is why analysts in one model are often confused all three levels: facts, causes and consequences, and the intentions of the actors. Unfortunately, there is no way to separate these three different models.
Different entities can come together that see the same participants, but differ in the interpretation of their roles. For example, in war the opposing sides are often strongly disagree about their own and others ' roles in military actions. Could it be otherwise – the subjects recognize the same roles, but call the different parties. For example, in a gravitational interaction involving two masses, but applicants for these masses can be different, as often happens in astronomy.
On this basis, if we want to build the adapter, we should be able to sew different points of view on reality, be that physical (volume) or mental (causal relationship). How to build such models, I told you earlier, is a separate and very big topic at the first stage, which discusses building an independent physical and mental patterns.
the
We saw that the same volume can be represented as objects of different types, we saw that an object can be represented in the form of a bridge structure, the function in the form of a structure consisting of features or objects, the operation – in the form of construction consisting of objects, or operations. One may wonder: can you build a design object from the functions and operations? Is it possible to build the design functions of the operations, or construction operations from functions? This is a fairly specific model, but they also are the place to be.
the
Thus, moreover, that any volume can be represented in the form of objects of different types, but objects of different types can be represented by structures consisting of objects of a different type than the simulated object, and limitations on the types of objects does not exist.
I made up the story about the object types and the relationships between them. Now you can experiment and find the design where once you see the semantic connection. You can also split mereological (objective) relations between objects and imagined relationship of the "cause-effect", or the intention of the subject.
the
While it seems that everything is logical and simple. However, let's add a bit of complexity. Remember that the future is modeled with the help of the space of possible outcomes, a simulation of the past is limited by the precision of our knowledge. Thus, when we talk about the commencement date of the existence of some object, for example, photon rocket, we say that this date lies in the future sometime after the year 2100. When will 2050-th year, we update this date and say that the date of commencement of the existence of such missiles sometime after 2150, the year. Thus, the value of the attribute "start date" will have variation and this variation will change over time. Therefore, the value of the attribute "start date" is not just a value, but rather the values area, and because this area is changing in time, it should be tied to the current date this field.
In systems engineering it is believed that an object's life cycle starts from the time of its design and ends with the time of disposal. About the time of disposal it is impossible to argue, but the moment you start designing, I would argue. In the design process is discussed the planned date of the beginning of existence of the object. And this date is not equal to the start date of the design object. The planned start date of the existence of the object specified together with the specification of design documentation. If we accept that the date of existence of the object is the date of the start of its design, we get an analogue of the Barber paradox, that is, nonsense. Are specified in the project creation date of the object and its disposal. If the project says that the creation date of the object is the start date of its design, you get a conflict.
Article based on information from habrahabr.ru
→ Notions: set, the type attribute
→ How to confuse an analyst. Part one
→ How to confuse an analyst. Part two: what is domain modeling?
→ How to confuse an analyst. Part three. Verbs and numerals
We briefly touched on the life cycle of the object from the point of view of its transformation and transformation of our ideas about it.
→ How to confuse the analyst — 4. The probability and accuracy
Next, I began considering modeling operations, functions, and objects from a unified point of view.
→ How to confuse the analyst — 5. Conceptual framework
All of this is beyond the scope of modeling in the development of information systems, but for the decision of tasks of integration of different information systems through the creation of the adapter between them is extremely necessary.
To create the adapter we need to learn to model the same thing in different ways: as object and as an action. For philosophical thought is not new, because objects do not exist outside of time, and actions can't be done without objects. In fact, we have to look at the world like you see it on the Buddhists: the object and action are one and the same. The need for such an Outlook stems from the need to combine different perspectives on the same events. in this article I will review the possible representations of reality and mereological relations (the relations part-whole) between them.
the
Experiment description
Let them have hours. Bring three people and ask them to describe what they saw.
the
- the Second says that it called a demonstration of the current time. the
- Third say that it is a set of operations called "turning the minute hand one notch".
the First to say that the object called clock. the
All three will be to describe one of the four-dimensional space-time object, but this will be done in different ways.
the
-
the
- In the first case, we get the model object the
- in the second function model, the
- in the third model of the operation.
If we want to create an adapter that connects three different information systems, in each of which the same will be modeled as an object, operation or function, we must learn to change their point of view, and in the same volume to learn to see and object, function, and operation. For this we need to accept the idea that the object, the operation and function of the different descriptions of the same space-time volume.
Object, operation or function are present in human consciousness but do not exist in reality. Not in the sense of solipsism as it might think the reader (the real world exists), but in the sense of interpreting the world, because the object, the operation or function is different interpretations of the same space-time volume.
Modeling the reality, we can cope with the representation of reality in the form of objects, however, almost not able to work with representations of reality in the form of functions and operations. And the existing standards do not help us to figure it out. In this article I will consider the relationship between representation of reality in the form of the object, functions and operations.
The simulation begins with the description of four-dimensional space-time volume, the interpretation of which then engaged the analyst. To do this, we construct a model of the boundaries accounting for location in space and in time. For example, to describe the temporal boundaries used in the attributes "start date" and "completion date". After describing the volume of the analyst makes the interpretation of this volume.
the
Representation of reality in the form of an object
To describe the design object model is built as a set of related objects – parts of the simulated object. The amount treated as an object is divided into parts, each of which is treated as an object.
the
Representation of reality in the form of functions
When we treat the four-dimensional space-time functions, we focus on dynamics, which has the property of repeatability. For example, the function of demonstrating time dynamic, but the events that accompany this dynamics, belong to the same class – turn arrow at a specified angle (statics). That is, an invariant function is a class of observable events.
You often hear it said that the function of watches is to show time. This thesis is shared by object and function. In fact, and object, and the function is different interpretations of the same volume. Therefore, from the point of view of modelling it is correct to say that the amount treated as watch, also can be interpreted as the share of the current time, which is going on in this area of space. This thesis builds a rather bulky model, so analysts are often reduced to two objects – functions (demonstration time), the object (clock) and the relationships between them "takes". This reduces the amount of modeling, but stopping to think correctly. In the proposed interpretation model is symmetrical with respect any of the accounting objects, whether the object, function, or anything else. The symmetry of the model allows to build the adapter.
Functions are modeled using IDEF0 notation. This notation allows to model constructive division of function on the part functional structure. This is when the function is divided into parts, each of which is treated as a function. This model is often mistakenly called a process model.
In this notation it is possible to see the beginnings of modeling design functions as objects. This is the so-called "arrow bottom". But at this point, the notation is incomplete because it is not clear what these hands – whether of the temporal part of the participants, the interpretation of whether these parts (roles), whether the participants themselves. Therefore, we can say that the beginnings of the modeling, but the notation is incomplete. I'll explain this later in more detail.
the
Representation of reality in the form of operation
When we treat the four-dimensional space-time as a transaction, we focus on the dynamics in which in the General case not invariant with respect to time, but it is invariant relative to the space in which the operation occurs. That is, operations occur in a certain volume, which from the point of view of the subject must be observed causal relationships.
Dynamics in the operation associated with the emergence and destruction of four-dimensional volumes. It can be amounts that are treated as status objects, the objects, and so on. Therefore, the model of the operation – lots of dates started and dates of completion of any four-dimensional volumes.
The operation should be distinguished from construction operations. Usually, the model of the operation know the specific model design. Common design operations are divided into two types. The first type of design – a description of its participants, and the second structure in the form of sub-operations associated temporal relationships (process). So often under the model operations understand the enumeration of its members, that is, its design in view of the participants. The reason for this kind of delusion has become the purpose of modeling. All the interesting causal relationships that led to the transaction, or an explanation of the changes. Causation may explain, referring either to the obvious role membership, or obvious sequence of sub-operations. This is done in two steps.
the
the first step is to model the temporal part of the operation. If we divide the operation time, it will be separated in time, which we shall interpret as operations. If we divide the operation in space, it will be part of, existing simultaneously throughout the operation. These parts will continue to be treated as a role.
First, consider the design model of the operation in the form of the roles of the participants. To explain causality in a similar way, you need to specify the obvious participants, who will explain what is happening. For example, if we want to explain why the Apple fell to the Ground, as obvious participants in the operation of the fall will be: a temporal part of an Apple, playing the role of the body 1, the temporal part of the Earth, playing the role of the body 2, and the gravitational interaction between the bodies. We referred to the law of gravity and thus explained the fall of the object on the Ground. To model this kind of explanation is necessary at the first step is to list the volumes, which will be interpreted as temporal parts of objects, for which it is necessary to associate these volumes with the volumes which are treated as the Earth and the Apple. In the second step, to ascribe to this volume the role of parties: the role of the body 1 and body 2 in the law of universal gravitation. Then refer to the law and to the explanation. In this case, the model of causality is a role model, model – model performers of these roles. Very often you can find a situation when the model of participants and role model to confuse and dump everything in one pile.
Consider the model construction operations in a sequence of sub-operations. To explain causality in a similar way, you need to list under the obvious operation that will explain things. For example, to explain the reasons why as the application has been processed, it is necessary to consider the sequence of operations from receipt to archiving. Looking at this sequence, it is easy to understand why everyone is interested in the operation side, was satisfied. For this construction the sequence of operations and the connections between them. And here again two levels – the first level of temporal volumes and their position in space-time, the second interpretation of these volumes in the form of a transactions and explanation of causal relationships between them.
Until I saw the standards in which these levels would be clearly separated. Now the simulation volume and their interpretation lumped together. For example, often say that the process should be the result. But the result is the second level of the model. What is the first level in which there is a sequence, but there's no result, no explanation of causality? Because analysts are missing this level of modeling, they do not need to think of a name for this kind of objects. But, building a full model, we have these names to look for. Or I recently heard that the role of the business analyst is to help the business. But again, the second level of the model on the first level which is the activity of modeling, but there are no goals and causal relationships. And then to call the first level — is not clear.
Mixing these levels also contributes to the language and inherited by us from ancestors of mythical consciousness. When I read that the horse jumps, I can interpret this thesis in three different ways. I can imagine moving the object in the form of horses performing specific movements, can you imagine a mechanical system capable of producing such movements, and may consider mental functions of the horse. All three methods of representation have the same verb – to ride and no hint of differentiation. That is why analysts in one model are often confused all three levels: facts, causes and consequences, and the intentions of the actors. Unfortunately, there is no way to separate these three different models.
Different entities can come together that see the same participants, but differ in the interpretation of their roles. For example, in war the opposing sides are often strongly disagree about their own and others ' roles in military actions. Could it be otherwise – the subjects recognize the same roles, but call the different parties. For example, in a gravitational interaction involving two masses, but applicants for these masses can be different, as often happens in astronomy.
On this basis, if we want to build the adapter, we should be able to sew different points of view on reality, be that physical (volume) or mental (causal relationship). How to build such models, I told you earlier, is a separate and very big topic at the first stage, which discusses building an independent physical and mental patterns.
the
Mereological relations between objects of different types
We saw that the same volume can be represented as objects of different types, we saw that an object can be represented in the form of a bridge structure, the function in the form of a structure consisting of features or objects, the operation – in the form of construction consisting of objects, or operations. One may wonder: can you build a design object from the functions and operations? Is it possible to build the design functions of the operations, or construction operations from functions? This is a fairly specific model, but they also are the place to be.
the
-
the
- Object – an entity may be represented in the form of designs, elements of which are functions of "production equipment" and "sale of equipment". the
- the clock Object can be represented as a structure consisting of operations "turn the clock" (a lot of them, but in principle, possible). the
- Function – demonstration of the current time similar to the clock can be represented as a structure consisting of operations "turn the clock". the
- Presentation of the operation in the form of a set of functions is also possible. Operation "drive a stake in the ground" can be represented as a structure consisting of functions to "keep the number in position" and "pounding a sledgehammer into the end of Cola."
Thus, moreover, that any volume can be represented in the form of objects of different types, but objects of different types can be represented by structures consisting of objects of a different type than the simulated object, and limitations on the types of objects does not exist.
I made up the story about the object types and the relationships between them. Now you can experiment and find the design where once you see the semantic connection. You can also split mereological (objective) relations between objects and imagined relationship of the "cause-effect", or the intention of the subject.
the
How the simulation looks in reality
While it seems that everything is logical and simple. However, let's add a bit of complexity. Remember that the future is modeled with the help of the space of possible outcomes, a simulation of the past is limited by the precision of our knowledge. Thus, when we talk about the commencement date of the existence of some object, for example, photon rocket, we say that this date lies in the future sometime after the year 2100. When will 2050-th year, we update this date and say that the date of commencement of the existence of such missiles sometime after 2150, the year. Thus, the value of the attribute "start date" will have variation and this variation will change over time. Therefore, the value of the attribute "start date" is not just a value, but rather the values area, and because this area is changing in time, it should be tied to the current date this field.
In systems engineering it is believed that an object's life cycle starts from the time of its design and ends with the time of disposal. About the time of disposal it is impossible to argue, but the moment you start designing, I would argue. In the design process is discussed the planned date of the beginning of existence of the object. And this date is not equal to the start date of the design object. The planned start date of the existence of the object specified together with the specification of design documentation. If we accept that the date of existence of the object is the date of the start of its design, we get an analogue of the Barber paradox, that is, nonsense. Are specified in the project creation date of the object and its disposal. If the project says that the creation date of the object is the start date of its design, you get a conflict.
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий