Modeling an object as a whole and as a composition
There are three fundamentally different ways of describing objects. The first is the description of the object as a whole. In such a description, the object is considered as whole and indivisible. For example, "Airplane is a vehicle for the transport of goods and passengers by air." The second way to describe is the description of the object as a structure. This description method is called compositional representation. For example, "The plane is a design from a fuselage, wings and engines". And the third way is the description of an object as an aggregation of other objects. For example, "The sand that lies in the yard is the sand that was brought yesterday, plus the one that was brought today." Next, we consider two of them as the most demanded: the description of an object as a whole and the description of an object as a composition.
In addition to the ways of describing an object, one must also know the limitations of these methods. The description of the object as a whole gives us a description from some point of view. This means that the description is always subjective and there are no objective descriptions. Description from some point of view is called functional. For example, whether we describe the geometric parameters of the aircraft, or its flight characteristics, we describe its functional qualities. Will the plane fit into the hangar, or can it fly so many miles? Therefore, the description of the object is always functional. To the question “What is this object?” The Europeans learned to respond quickly in the following way. They automatically proceed to the description of the composition of the object and say: "The object is the interaction of such and such parts." Thus, the question of what an object is is delegated to the level of decomposition. And now we have not one question, but many at once. Their number is equal to the number of objects represented in the decomposition and the number of connections between objects.
There is another important philosophical principle. This principle is known as the thesis: "the sum of the parts of a whole is not a whole." That is, having broken an object into parts and having considered their interaction with each other, we, nevertheless, did not receive a description of the object. It is impossible in principle. With such a partition we lost something, namely, the properties of the object as a whole.
')
Understanding the following points of thinking:
1. method of splitting an object into parts
2. the mechanism of transferring the answer to the question: “What is an object?” Further on to the composition level
3. The principle of "The sum of the parts is not a whole"
leads us to the conclusion why the world cannot be known in the way proposed by European thinkers. That is, if by knowledge we understand what Godel understood. Namely, comprehensive information about the object. But this does not prevent us from understanding it.
In modern philosophy, understanding explores hermeneutics. Understanding, according to hermeneutics, is a universal operation of thinking associated with the assimilation of new content, its inclusion in the system of established ideas and ideas. The result of understanding comes as a result of passing the attention of the researcher on the so-called Hermeneutic circle. The hermeneutic circle is a principle of understanding based on the dialectic of the part and the whole. That is, speaking in Russian, a person again and again does the same thing: he breaks an object apart, assembles and again disassembles it physically or mentally. And suddenly at some moment he shouts “I understood!”, Or as the Germans say, “Gestalt is closed!”. And this is understanding.
Once again: understanding comes by disassembling an object into different parts in a different way and then assembling them. And this process lasts until understanding comes. From this point on, understanding is fixed in the form of an object model as a whole and an object model as its parts. Further, these models can be transferred to others in order to enable them to experience the same moment of understanding. The moment of understanding is a specific emotion that embraces a person when he reaches understanding. We must pay tribute to those teachers who know this and work on their lectures exactly until the students begin to experience the emotion of knowledge with him. I often met teachers who behave like sadists, forcing students to cram. It does not lead to understanding, as you already understood.
So, the result of understanding becomes the model of the object as a whole and as a structure.
To simulate functional objects as a whole and as constructions, engineers came up with the IDEF0 notation. The notation element - a square - denotes the description of an object as a function that transforms informational or physical objects. This is a rather primitive idea of ​​activity, but covers a fairly large range of tasks. Why primitive? Because not everything in this world is described by flows of objects. There are events that are significant in their essence, but do not carry any streams. This, for example, services provided by the company. By definition of service, there are no material flows that would accompany the service. Sometimes there are information flows, but, again, not always.
The functional object in IDEF0 notation can be represented as a function, and after the operation, which the creators of the notation called decomposition, can be represented as a construction of functions. Modern business analysts often confuse the terms and functional designation called process. This is incorrect, because the functional design does not carry information about temporal (temporary) connections between objects. The picture painted by the modeler describes the static, but does not describe the dynamics of the system. Other notations are used to describe the dynamics. For example, simultaneously with the consciousness of the IDEF0 notation, the IDEF3 notation was created. This notation reminds us of modern BPMN scenario modeling notation, for example. It has elements that allow you to simulate temporal relationships.
The philosophy that holds to the idea that the whole is known through its construction is called reductionism. The philosophy that holds a different point of view is holism. Thus, it can be said that the Europeans are reductionists, and the Chinese are holists. The reduction of views gave rise to one interesting paradox in modeling subject areas. Recognizing the principle of holism, European culture is in no hurry to introduce these principles into models and descriptions. In all the notations that are used to model the activity, there is a term decomposition and the term composition is absent. Guess now why?
In addition to the ways of describing an object, one must also know the limitations of these methods. The description of the object as a whole gives us a description from some point of view. This means that the description is always subjective and there are no objective descriptions. Description from some point of view is called functional. For example, whether we describe the geometric parameters of the aircraft, or its flight characteristics, we describe its functional qualities. Will the plane fit into the hangar, or can it fly so many miles? Therefore, the description of the object is always functional. To the question “What is this object?” The Europeans learned to respond quickly in the following way. They automatically proceed to the description of the composition of the object and say: "The object is the interaction of such and such parts." Thus, the question of what an object is is delegated to the level of decomposition. And now we have not one question, but many at once. Their number is equal to the number of objects represented in the decomposition and the number of connections between objects.
There is another important philosophical principle. This principle is known as the thesis: "the sum of the parts of a whole is not a whole." That is, having broken an object into parts and having considered their interaction with each other, we, nevertheless, did not receive a description of the object. It is impossible in principle. With such a partition we lost something, namely, the properties of the object as a whole.
')
Understanding the following points of thinking:
1. method of splitting an object into parts
2. the mechanism of transferring the answer to the question: “What is an object?” Further on to the composition level
3. The principle of "The sum of the parts is not a whole"
leads us to the conclusion why the world cannot be known in the way proposed by European thinkers. That is, if by knowledge we understand what Godel understood. Namely, comprehensive information about the object. But this does not prevent us from understanding it.
In modern philosophy, understanding explores hermeneutics. Understanding, according to hermeneutics, is a universal operation of thinking associated with the assimilation of new content, its inclusion in the system of established ideas and ideas. The result of understanding comes as a result of passing the attention of the researcher on the so-called Hermeneutic circle. The hermeneutic circle is a principle of understanding based on the dialectic of the part and the whole. That is, speaking in Russian, a person again and again does the same thing: he breaks an object apart, assembles and again disassembles it physically or mentally. And suddenly at some moment he shouts “I understood!”, Or as the Germans say, “Gestalt is closed!”. And this is understanding.
Once again: understanding comes by disassembling an object into different parts in a different way and then assembling them. And this process lasts until understanding comes. From this point on, understanding is fixed in the form of an object model as a whole and an object model as its parts. Further, these models can be transferred to others in order to enable them to experience the same moment of understanding. The moment of understanding is a specific emotion that embraces a person when he reaches understanding. We must pay tribute to those teachers who know this and work on their lectures exactly until the students begin to experience the emotion of knowledge with him. I often met teachers who behave like sadists, forcing students to cram. It does not lead to understanding, as you already understood.
So, the result of understanding becomes the model of the object as a whole and as a structure.
To simulate functional objects as a whole and as constructions, engineers came up with the IDEF0 notation. The notation element - a square - denotes the description of an object as a function that transforms informational or physical objects. This is a rather primitive idea of ​​activity, but covers a fairly large range of tasks. Why primitive? Because not everything in this world is described by flows of objects. There are events that are significant in their essence, but do not carry any streams. This, for example, services provided by the company. By definition of service, there are no material flows that would accompany the service. Sometimes there are information flows, but, again, not always.
The functional object in IDEF0 notation can be represented as a function, and after the operation, which the creators of the notation called decomposition, can be represented as a construction of functions. Modern business analysts often confuse the terms and functional designation called process. This is incorrect, because the functional design does not carry information about temporal (temporary) connections between objects. The picture painted by the modeler describes the static, but does not describe the dynamics of the system. Other notations are used to describe the dynamics. For example, simultaneously with the consciousness of the IDEF0 notation, the IDEF3 notation was created. This notation reminds us of modern BPMN scenario modeling notation, for example. It has elements that allow you to simulate temporal relationships.
The philosophy that holds to the idea that the whole is known through its construction is called reductionism. The philosophy that holds a different point of view is holism. Thus, it can be said that the Europeans are reductionists, and the Chinese are holists. The reduction of views gave rise to one interesting paradox in modeling subject areas. Recognizing the principle of holism, European culture is in no hurry to introduce these principles into models and descriptions. In all the notations that are used to model the activity, there is a term decomposition and the term composition is absent. Guess now why?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/244319/
All Articles