Difficulties in modeling operations in standard ways. Modeling 4-objects, problem statement
When writing this article, I did my best to make it easy to read. However, it contains a very complex and non-trivial conclusion - why the methods of modeling operations that we find in almost every notation do not give us satisfaction. I have not seen this analysis anywhere, not even in the book of Chris Partridge, which I love very much: Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use . Therefore, I hope that the article will be easy and useful at the same time.
All models that we build should somehow model 4-dimensional space-time, because this is how we imagine the world around us. This is covered in the book by Chris Partridge. Even what seems to be irrelevant to 4-space, on closer examination, turns out to be one. True, not always existing in reality, sometimes - this is the world we imagine. Anyone who is interested in how this happens, I recommend carefully reading this book. However, I advise you not to pay attention to the definition of the event in this book - it is given incorrectly.
For example, what is a bolt? This is a 4-dimensional object, which is limited in space-time by certain boundaries. To simulate a bolt, there are notations that model these boundaries. For example, a bolt drawing simulates a surface that limits 3-dimensional volume. Adding 6 more time-dependent coordinates to this drawing, we obtain a 4-D space-time surface model that simulates a bolt.
')
However, what is an operation? This is also a 4-dimensional object, which also, like a bolt, is limited by certain boundaries in space and in time. However, it is much more difficult to imagine an operation as a 4-object. There are three reasons why it is difficult for us to do this.
First, unlike the bolt, the operation is less dense. Can a bolt intersect in space-time with another bolt? Experience suggests that no. Operations, unlike bolts, are less dense. Therefore, operations can intersect in the same space - time. If the operations were as dense as the bolt, it would be easier for us to imagine them. But, on the other hand, it would be a mistake to think that the bolt cannot intersect with other objects. For example, a bolt can simultaneously exist in the same space with an object that consists of dark matter. And, if we perceived dark matter with our senses, we would say that a bolt is not a dense object, and then it would be difficult to imagine a bolt as a dense object.
Secondly, our perception of the operation as a four-dimensional object is complicated by the fact that in our language the descriptions of three-dimensional space and time are separated. Since we cannot move back in time, this fourth coordinate of our world looks to us differently than spatial coordinates. Therefore, in the language, the representation of the three coordinates of space differs from the representation of the fourth coordinate, time, and those objects, the form and composition of which change in time, are perceived by us differently than those objects, the form and composition of which do not change in time.
For example, the shape and composition of the bolt in time are unchanged. Therefore, we can imagine a bolt as a 3-object. Imagine the operation as simply no longer possible, because its shape and composition change over time. However, from the point of view of a micro-observer who could see quantum leaps, a bolt would look no less strange: as an object, whose form and composition are constantly changing. It would also be difficult for a micro-observer to imagine a bolt as a static object.
In addition to these difficulties in modeling the operation, there is another reason, perhaps the most difficult to understand. This difficulty arose from the peculiarities of our language, which, in turn, implements the patterns of our mythic consciousness . There are sentence members in the language: subject, predicate and addition, which model the actor, the action performed by him and the object of the activity. From this linguistic pattern, it follows that our usual sentences model activity, and in the theory of activity, an operation is a connection between an actor and an object of activity, but not an object! Therefore, the language itself tells us: an operation is a connection, not an object. But such a connection is possible if there is an actor. An actor in a language can be any animate (for example, deer), or an inanimate (for example, the Sun) object. But in the models that analysts build, the only actor can be an actor. Otherwise, if we say that something non-living performs an operation, we thereby endow the non-living with the ability for rational activity, that is, animate objects. If we are sufficiently disciplined as analysts, we cannot say that the robot performed the action, we can only say that the action took place and the robot was one of its participants. Thus, with the help of the theory of activity, we can describe only those operations that are performed by the subject, and only from one point of view - from the point of view of this subject. If we need to model operations that occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova explosion), or operations that we would like to see interpretation from different points of view (for example, a purchase and sale operation), then this metamodel of the operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a way of modeling, and it is modeling operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I'll talk about them in another article.
As I said earlier, the bolt and the operation are four-dimensional objects in the space-time continuum. What, then, is the difference between bolt and operation? No more than ways to describe one and the second. I have long wanted to set a common task and understand what methods of describing 4-objects exist in general, and what types of objects they are usually associated with. To do this, it was necessary to take two steps: first make time and space equal, create a language describing such a world and classify the ways of describing this world, and then get the results back into standard language patterns. I did it, and in the following articles I will try to explain.
I note that for physics, equality between spatial coordinates and time has long been the norm. Recently, philosophers also discovered this equality for themselves, but so far this knowledge is not available to ontological engineers. Let's try to take advantage of this presentation and see what discoveries this will lead us to.
All models that we build should somehow model 4-dimensional space-time, because this is how we imagine the world around us. This is covered in the book by Chris Partridge. Even what seems to be irrelevant to 4-space, on closer examination, turns out to be one. True, not always existing in reality, sometimes - this is the world we imagine. Anyone who is interested in how this happens, I recommend carefully reading this book. However, I advise you not to pay attention to the definition of the event in this book - it is given incorrectly.
For example, what is a bolt? This is a 4-dimensional object, which is limited in space-time by certain boundaries. To simulate a bolt, there are notations that model these boundaries. For example, a bolt drawing simulates a surface that limits 3-dimensional volume. Adding 6 more time-dependent coordinates to this drawing, we obtain a 4-D space-time surface model that simulates a bolt.
')
However, what is an operation? This is also a 4-dimensional object, which also, like a bolt, is limited by certain boundaries in space and in time. However, it is much more difficult to imagine an operation as a 4-object. There are three reasons why it is difficult for us to do this.
First, unlike the bolt, the operation is less dense. Can a bolt intersect in space-time with another bolt? Experience suggests that no. Operations, unlike bolts, are less dense. Therefore, operations can intersect in the same space - time. If the operations were as dense as the bolt, it would be easier for us to imagine them. But, on the other hand, it would be a mistake to think that the bolt cannot intersect with other objects. For example, a bolt can simultaneously exist in the same space with an object that consists of dark matter. And, if we perceived dark matter with our senses, we would say that a bolt is not a dense object, and then it would be difficult to imagine a bolt as a dense object.
Secondly, our perception of the operation as a four-dimensional object is complicated by the fact that in our language the descriptions of three-dimensional space and time are separated. Since we cannot move back in time, this fourth coordinate of our world looks to us differently than spatial coordinates. Therefore, in the language, the representation of the three coordinates of space differs from the representation of the fourth coordinate, time, and those objects, the form and composition of which change in time, are perceived by us differently than those objects, the form and composition of which do not change in time.
For example, the shape and composition of the bolt in time are unchanged. Therefore, we can imagine a bolt as a 3-object. Imagine the operation as simply no longer possible, because its shape and composition change over time. However, from the point of view of a micro-observer who could see quantum leaps, a bolt would look no less strange: as an object, whose form and composition are constantly changing. It would also be difficult for a micro-observer to imagine a bolt as a static object.
In addition to these difficulties in modeling the operation, there is another reason, perhaps the most difficult to understand. This difficulty arose from the peculiarities of our language, which, in turn, implements the patterns of our mythic consciousness . There are sentence members in the language: subject, predicate and addition, which model the actor, the action performed by him and the object of the activity. From this linguistic pattern, it follows that our usual sentences model activity, and in the theory of activity, an operation is a connection between an actor and an object of activity, but not an object! Therefore, the language itself tells us: an operation is a connection, not an object. But such a connection is possible if there is an actor. An actor in a language can be any animate (for example, deer), or an inanimate (for example, the Sun) object. But in the models that analysts build, the only actor can be an actor. Otherwise, if we say that something non-living performs an operation, we thereby endow the non-living with the ability for rational activity, that is, animate objects. If we are sufficiently disciplined as analysts, we cannot say that the robot performed the action, we can only say that the action took place and the robot was one of its participants. Thus, with the help of the theory of activity, we can describe only those operations that are performed by the subject, and only from one point of view - from the point of view of this subject. If we need to model operations that occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova explosion), or operations that we would like to see interpretation from different points of view (for example, a purchase and sale operation), then this metamodel of the operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a way of modeling, and it is modeling operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I'll talk about them in another article.
As I said earlier, the bolt and the operation are four-dimensional objects in the space-time continuum. What, then, is the difference between bolt and operation? No more than ways to describe one and the second. I have long wanted to set a common task and understand what methods of describing 4-objects exist in general, and what types of objects they are usually associated with. To do this, it was necessary to take two steps: first make time and space equal, create a language describing such a world and classify the ways of describing this world, and then get the results back into standard language patterns. I did it, and in the following articles I will try to explain.
I note that for physics, equality between spatial coordinates and time has long been the norm. Recently, philosophers also discovered this equality for themselves, but so far this knowledge is not available to ontological engineers. Let's try to take advantage of this presentation and see what discoveries this will lead us to.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/319032/
All Articles