Functional Modeling
Continuation of the article .
In this article I consider the concept of a functional object and explain how to interpret the model of functional objects. For those in a hurry, I advise you to look at the end of the article right away - in the chapter “Experiments and Employees”, where a finished interpretation of the model is given, based on the postulates described here.
When we describe a subject area, we think that we are trying to KNOW it, and in fact we are engaged in UNDERSTANDING the subject area and describing our understanding. The difference between knowledge and understanding is worth emphasizing. The fact is that the models that we build are subjective, and therefore are a reflection of our understanding of the subject, but not knowledge of the subject. The reason for which knowledge is unattainable is the inconsistency of the method that we chose as a tool of knowledge - the division of an object into parts (analysis) and assembling them together (synthesis) Modeling an object as a whole and as a composition . Therefore, we can say that we are focused primarily on understanding, but not on knowledge. Hermeneutics deals with issues of understanding. Everyone has their own understanding. It makes no sense to argue about who is better or worse. One can argue only about what kind of understanding can be explained by a wider range of practical problems, or it is consistent within the framework of certain axioms. It is impossible to demand more from understanding. For example, I can argue that the model that I propose for consideration describes more fully our idea of ​​reality than a model built on the principles of relational data. But I can not say that the model I proposed correctly describes our view of the world. Those who do not see the difference between understanding and knowledge often claim to know the truth in their debates. If to reason logically, and to assume that the truth is comprehensible, then the result of its comprehension would be the impossibility to express it in words.
How does the heart express itself?
Other how to understand you?
Will he understand what you live?
A thought spoken is a lie ...
Author: F. I. Tyutchev
')
Therefore, I argue that my considerations are nothing more than an attempt to describe my understanding of how we build models of things, and this understanding is subjective. This I emphasize again.
We are accustomed to the fact that the world consists of objects, but
To describe the results of our perception, mathematicians needed to create a theory of sets, physicists to combine space and time into one common space, and philosophers to understand how we divide this space-time into parts. So the following picture came out:
In the resulting picture, one must learn to build structures somehow. I can not tell you about all the designs that were created today, because there are quite a lot of them. In this article I will discuss only one thing - the class of functional objects. In the next article I will talk about information objects. Many similar constructions and explanations of them can be found in the books: Matthew West “Developing High Quality Data Models” Chris Partridge Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use , GOST R ISO 15926-2-2010 , and also on the website . In this article I will only demonstrate how the reasoning is based on the example of functional objects.
An example of a functional object is a position. Like other functional objects, the position is filled with different atoms, which belong to Maria Ivanovna, Sergey Petrovich, and, God forbid, to Gennady Nikolayevich. Functional object position changes atoms whenever there is a change of head. Is he interrupted while the manager is sleeping? No, because a functional object is an object in the heads of the people who designed the production system. And they didn’t have in their thoughts that the object disappears while its performer is sleeping. Thus, some objects of reality can intersect with other objects of reality. Such intersections, or common parts of objects, are called space-time parts.
(I note that any intersection is a space-time part, but not any space-time part is an intersection).
This means that a certain part of Maria Ivanovna coincides with some part of the Branch Manager. To do this, we divided Maria Ivanovna not into spatial parts, but into temporary ones. And, if Maria Ivanovna, besides this, works as a programmer, then theoretically she can simultaneously play the role of a branch manager and a programmer. This means that there is such a part of the branch manager who is also a programmer at the same time and who is also Maria Ivanovna. Nothing complicated, but it’s worth thinking about.
Another example: let there be a locking mechanism that simultaneously acts as a safety valve. Then we have a physical object - a device produced at the factory, a valve and a locking mechanism. At the same time, the lifetimes of these three objects may not coincide. But at a certain period of time, all these three objects have common atoms.
The same atoms in our model of the world can simultaneously perform different functions, that is, be parts of different functional objects. Anatoly Levenchuk described such a multitude of ideas in one of his reports as follows: YIN YANG and KHRIN, In this report, the author, among other things, answered the question: why did analysts need to dig so deep? These are the complex structures we create in our mind, and we need to learn how to model them. What does it look like? it looks like a tangent plane. If there are different surfaces that touch in certain places, then these places will be common to these surfaces.
The first step towards this kind of modeling was made by the ISO 15926 standard. I recommend to get acquainted with it. Theses given in it are very interesting and useful.
Next, before moving on to the modeling of experiments and staff. I will answer the question left by me for independent research in the last article:
I will give answers to the questions that I asked the readers in a previous publication : What does the table given by me model?
We give two interpretations:
Let's try to apply the constructed paradigm to the modeling of experiments and employees, which I began in a previous publication . We have experiments. What is an experiment? An experiment is a kind of 4-D object that must answer the question posed by an observer. The one who created the experiment asks the question, and the experiment must answer it. The function of the experiment is to answer the question.
The boundaries of an object called an experiment are arbitrary and depend on agreements between participants in the experiment. For example, let an employee set only his hair for the experiment. Do you think this employee is fully involved in the experiment, or assume that only his hair is involved in the experiment? The answer depends only on the agreement accepted by all. If it is entirely, then the experiment includes the employee, if only the hair, then only the hair.
An experiment, like any other object, can be divided into parts: spatial and temporal in an infinite number of ways. We did this before with a shovel and with a branch manager. But now the following division will be important for us: we single out those parts of the experiment whose atoms belong to the thinking beings. And also all the other parts that in this context do not interest us. An employee is a person. The set of those parts of the 4-D space-time that belong to both the employee and the experiment is the participation of this employee in the experiment. Thus, we have a class of objects, which are 4-D objects, consisting of atoms belonging to both experiment and man. That is, an employee's participation in an experiment is a class of objects. Each such object is the 4-D part of the employee and the 4-D part of the experiment, represented by the same atoms.
Unexpectedly, but the relationship between the employee and the experiment turned into a set of objects. Objects quite unusual. How can you call me an object from 8-00 to 16-00? But we always select objects in this way. For example, we easily represent the division of an object into spatial parts. What prevents us from doing the same with temporary units? Nothing. Therefore, there are not only spatial parts of me, but also temporary ones.
So again. We have an experiment, there is a class of objects that are space-time parts of an experiment. There is a man and there are his time-space parts. Classes have an intersection. The intersection of these classes is the class of the common parts that mean in our language: the employee participates in the experiment. The graphical language for modeling these relationships is described in ISO 15926-2.
Now we can give the following interpretation of the table of relations between the employee and the experiment, which I drew in the last article.
The relationship between the employee and the experiment refers to the common parts that the employee and the experiment have. Knowing this, we can add new parameters to the table of relationships, in order to specify the degree of participation of the employee and to describe in more detail the place of the employee in the experiment. To do this, you can add two fields in the relationship table: the employee part and the experiment part. This will indicate that the experiment is not involved employee, and its part in the form of hair. The parameters of the start date and the end date of the participation of the employee in the experiment will complete the drawn picture, emphasizing the fact that the parts that we consider have a space-time nature.
For those who read to the end, I propose to think about the problem: what is a position? Describe the position in terms of space-time parts.
In the next article I will talk about the nature of information objects. (To be continued) .
In this article I consider the concept of a functional object and explain how to interpret the model of functional objects. For those in a hurry, I advise you to look at the end of the article right away - in the chapter “Experiments and Employees”, where a finished interpretation of the model is given, based on the postulates described here.
Understanding and cognition
When we describe a subject area, we think that we are trying to KNOW it, and in fact we are engaged in UNDERSTANDING the subject area and describing our understanding. The difference between knowledge and understanding is worth emphasizing. The fact is that the models that we build are subjective, and therefore are a reflection of our understanding of the subject, but not knowledge of the subject. The reason for which knowledge is unattainable is the inconsistency of the method that we chose as a tool of knowledge - the division of an object into parts (analysis) and assembling them together (synthesis) Modeling an object as a whole and as a composition . Therefore, we can say that we are focused primarily on understanding, but not on knowledge. Hermeneutics deals with issues of understanding. Everyone has their own understanding. It makes no sense to argue about who is better or worse. One can argue only about what kind of understanding can be explained by a wider range of practical problems, or it is consistent within the framework of certain axioms. It is impossible to demand more from understanding. For example, I can argue that the model that I propose for consideration describes more fully our idea of ​​reality than a model built on the principles of relational data. But I can not say that the model I proposed correctly describes our view of the world. Those who do not see the difference between understanding and knowledge often claim to know the truth in their debates. If to reason logically, and to assume that the truth is comprehensible, then the result of its comprehension would be the impossibility to express it in words.
How does the heart express itself?
Other how to understand you?
Will he understand what you live?
A thought spoken is a lie ...
Author: F. I. Tyutchev
')
Therefore, I argue that my considerations are nothing more than an attempt to describe my understanding of how we build models of things, and this understanding is subjective. This I emphasize again.
What we do not understand
We are accustomed to the fact that the world consists of objects, but
- We do not understand that our perception of objects is not three-dimensional, but four-dimensional, if by the fourth dimension we mean time. If I ask you to draw an apple tree, then you will have to ask me: in what period of its existence? Seed, sprout, sapling, spreading tree, stump with the last sprout on it? All this is one single apple tree. If we use nouns to describe the spatial parts of an object, we have verbs to describe the fourth dimension. For example, an apple tree grows describes the fourth dimension of an apple tree object in the form of a positive derivative of its size over time.
- We do not understand that our perception of the world is based on the attitude to the world as a functional object. This means that our description of anything will necessarily be based on the functionality of this something. Even the size of an object is a sign of its functionality. We are consumers to the core of our mind. To be able to see more than just functional objects, you need to deeply know your thinking and learn to control it. This is what Zen Buddhism does, for example.
- We do not understand what we choose for ourselves, what to consider as an object and what to consider as object boundaries. For example, is an inflated balloon an object, or a space filled with gas? It all depends on what we decide on this. Maybe an object, maybe a space. And after it became clear that there is empty space inside the atom, it became obvious that space surrounds us, and an object is one of the ways to talk about space.
- We do not understand that the space itself, in which we then find objects, is the fruit of our perception of the world, and not reality. What reality is we will never know. But then we can study the result of our perception of reality and try to describe it as a model.
Basis for building structures
To describe the results of our perception, mathematicians needed to create a theory of sets, physicists to combine space and time into one common space, and philosophers to understand how we divide this space-time into parts. So the following picture came out:
- Space does not exist outside of time. Time does not exist separately from space. That is, we represent reality as 4-D space-time.
- Space-time is considered to exist only in our mind. Space and time do not exist without the subject watching it. It exists only as a reflection of our perception of the world. That is, we construct our 4-D space-time ourselves.
- The object is an arbitrarily selected part of the space-time. We are accustomed to the fact that objects exist independently of our consciousness. But it is not. The division of space-time into parts in order to select objects, we produce subjectively. With our will, we separate volumes from space-time and endow them with the property of being an object. All items are invented by us solely on the basis of ease of use (functionality). There is no other criterion with which one could say with guarantee: this is an object, but this is not.
- Object and activity are the same. That is, one cannot say that there is a separate object, but there is a separate activity of it. The object is the activity. And the activity is the object. This thesis must be experienced, and then again experienced.
- The object is always functional. For example, we know for sure that this shovel is this shovel. Even after we replace her cutting, she remains the same shovel. That is, the atoms of the object can vary, but the object itself from the point of view of the observer is not. You yourself almost completely change your set of atoms every few years. However, this does not prevent you from feeling the same being. Even when we select an object on the basis of, as it seems to us, other principles, we are still driven by the desire to classify the world on the basis of functional features.
The concept of functional objects
In the resulting picture, one must learn to build structures somehow. I can not tell you about all the designs that were created today, because there are quite a lot of them. In this article I will discuss only one thing - the class of functional objects. In the next article I will talk about information objects. Many similar constructions and explanations of them can be found in the books: Matthew West “Developing High Quality Data Models” Chris Partridge Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use , GOST R ISO 15926-2-2010 , and also on the website . In this article I will only demonstrate how the reasoning is based on the example of functional objects.
- The first way of dividing things into parts is based on the assumption (rather strong) that matter is continuous. That is, if we notice an atom here, then in a moment it will most likely be somewhere nearby. From this assumption a conclusion is made that one of the ways to define objects is the physical integrity of the object. It is believed that where the atomic composition of the substance is generally unchanged, there we observe a physical object. For the meticulous, I repeat that neither the space itself nor the objects in it exist. there is a way to talk about our perception of the world, no more. But it will not affect the findings.
- The second method of division is dictated by the functions that we select. For example, the function "Branch Manager". - it is a functional object that exists in the minds of a certain number of people and which is executed at different times by different physical objects. For example, if we assume that the cutting from a shovel is a replaceable part, then the functional object “shovel” is filled at different times with different atoms of different cuttings.
Functional Examples
An example of a functional object is a position. Like other functional objects, the position is filled with different atoms, which belong to Maria Ivanovna, Sergey Petrovich, and, God forbid, to Gennady Nikolayevich. Functional object position changes atoms whenever there is a change of head. Is he interrupted while the manager is sleeping? No, because a functional object is an object in the heads of the people who designed the production system. And they didn’t have in their thoughts that the object disappears while its performer is sleeping. Thus, some objects of reality can intersect with other objects of reality. Such intersections, or common parts of objects, are called space-time parts.
(I note that any intersection is a space-time part, but not any space-time part is an intersection).
This means that a certain part of Maria Ivanovna coincides with some part of the Branch Manager. To do this, we divided Maria Ivanovna not into spatial parts, but into temporary ones. And, if Maria Ivanovna, besides this, works as a programmer, then theoretically she can simultaneously play the role of a branch manager and a programmer. This means that there is such a part of the branch manager who is also a programmer at the same time and who is also Maria Ivanovna. Nothing complicated, but it’s worth thinking about.
Another example: let there be a locking mechanism that simultaneously acts as a safety valve. Then we have a physical object - a device produced at the factory, a valve and a locking mechanism. At the same time, the lifetimes of these three objects may not coincide. But at a certain period of time, all these three objects have common atoms.
The same atoms in our model of the world can simultaneously perform different functions, that is, be parts of different functional objects. Anatoly Levenchuk described such a multitude of ideas in one of his reports as follows: YIN YANG and KHRIN, In this report, the author, among other things, answered the question: why did analysts need to dig so deep? These are the complex structures we create in our mind, and we need to learn how to model them. What does it look like? it looks like a tangent plane. If there are different surfaces that touch in certain places, then these places will be common to these surfaces.
The first step towards this kind of modeling was made by the ISO 15926 standard. I recommend to get acquainted with it. Theses given in it are very interesting and useful.
Next, before moving on to the modeling of experiments and staff. I will answer the question left by me for independent research in the last article:
Answers on questions
I will give answers to the questions that I asked the readers in a previous publication : What does the table given by me model?
We give two interpretations:
- Aristotle did not speak SQL and therefore could not write restrictions on the range of parameters. Therefore, he believed that the type is just a list of parameters. But now we can add to this definition also the domain of parameter values ​​of instances of this type. That is, the table below is a description of the range of permissible parameter values. However, it omits defaults. For example, the maximum vehicle speed is 75 km / h. No one will mind if it is higher? That is, besides what we see, we need to know the industry norms, which indicate that the higher the maximum speed of transport, the better. From the table it does not follow. This interpretation is given in the intensional context.
- The second interpretation of the above parameter values ​​reads as follows: all objects of the BTR class must have a maximum movement speed of 75 km / h. A. if we know industry standards, then all objects of the BTR class should have a maximum speed of movement equal to or greater than 75 km / h This interpretation is given in extensional context.
Experiments and staff
Let's try to apply the constructed paradigm to the modeling of experiments and employees, which I began in a previous publication . We have experiments. What is an experiment? An experiment is a kind of 4-D object that must answer the question posed by an observer. The one who created the experiment asks the question, and the experiment must answer it. The function of the experiment is to answer the question.
The boundaries of an object called an experiment are arbitrary and depend on agreements between participants in the experiment. For example, let an employee set only his hair for the experiment. Do you think this employee is fully involved in the experiment, or assume that only his hair is involved in the experiment? The answer depends only on the agreement accepted by all. If it is entirely, then the experiment includes the employee, if only the hair, then only the hair.
An experiment, like any other object, can be divided into parts: spatial and temporal in an infinite number of ways. We did this before with a shovel and with a branch manager. But now the following division will be important for us: we single out those parts of the experiment whose atoms belong to the thinking beings. And also all the other parts that in this context do not interest us. An employee is a person. The set of those parts of the 4-D space-time that belong to both the employee and the experiment is the participation of this employee in the experiment. Thus, we have a class of objects, which are 4-D objects, consisting of atoms belonging to both experiment and man. That is, an employee's participation in an experiment is a class of objects. Each such object is the 4-D part of the employee and the 4-D part of the experiment, represented by the same atoms.
Unexpectedly, but the relationship between the employee and the experiment turned into a set of objects. Objects quite unusual. How can you call me an object from 8-00 to 16-00? But we always select objects in this way. For example, we easily represent the division of an object into spatial parts. What prevents us from doing the same with temporary units? Nothing. Therefore, there are not only spatial parts of me, but also temporary ones.
So again. We have an experiment, there is a class of objects that are space-time parts of an experiment. There is a man and there are his time-space parts. Classes have an intersection. The intersection of these classes is the class of the common parts that mean in our language: the employee participates in the experiment. The graphical language for modeling these relationships is described in ISO 15926-2.
Now we can give the following interpretation of the table of relations between the employee and the experiment, which I drew in the last article.
The relationship between the employee and the experiment refers to the common parts that the employee and the experiment have. Knowing this, we can add new parameters to the table of relationships, in order to specify the degree of participation of the employee and to describe in more detail the place of the employee in the experiment. To do this, you can add two fields in the relationship table: the employee part and the experiment part. This will indicate that the experiment is not involved employee, and its part in the form of hair. The parameters of the start date and the end date of the participation of the employee in the experiment will complete the drawn picture, emphasizing the fact that the parts that we consider have a space-time nature.
For those who read to the end, I propose to think about the problem: what is a position? Describe the position in terms of space-time parts.
In the next article I will talk about the nature of information objects. (To be continued) .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/245267/
All Articles