Modeling objects, functions and operations. Mereological relations between objects of this type
In previous articles, I sorted out the modeling of objects, types and attributes.
→ Concepts: set, type, attribute
→ How to confuse the analyst. Part one
→ How to confuse the analyst. Part Two: What is domain modeling?
→ How to confuse the analyst. Part Three Verbs and numerals
In short, we touched upon the life cycle of an object in terms of its transformation and the transformation of our ideas about it.
')
→ How to confuse analytics - 4. Probability and accuracy
Next, I began to look at modeling operations, functions, and objects from a single point of view.
→ How to confuse analytics - 5. Conceptual apparatus
All this goes beyond modeling in the creation of information systems, but for solving the problems of integration of various information systems through the creation of an adapter between them, it is extremely necessary.
To create an adapter, we need to learn how to model the same thing in different ways: as an object and as an action. For philosophical thought, this is not new, because objects do not exist outside of time, and actions cannot be performed without objects. In fact, we have to look at the world as Buddhists look at it: the object and the action are one and the same. The need for such a worldview stems from the need to unite different points of view on the same thing happening. In this article I will consider the possible representations of reality and the mereological mereological relations (part-whole relations) between them.
Let him have a watch. We give three people and ask them to describe what they saw.
All three will describe one four-dimensional space-time object, but they will do it in different ways.
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, then we need to learn how to change our point of view, and in the same volume learn to see the object , and function, and operation. To do this, we must accept the idea that the object, operation and function are different descriptions of the same space-time volume.
An object, operation or function is present in the human mind, but does not exist in reality. Not in the sense of solipsism, as the reader might think (the real world exists), but in the sense of the interpretation of this world, because the object, operation and function are different interpretations of the same space-time volume.
Modeling reality, we can easily cope with the representation of reality in the form of objects, however, we hardly know how to work with representations of reality in the form of functions and operations. And existing standards do not help us figure it out. In this article I will discuss the relationship between the representation of reality in the form of an object, function, and operation.
Modeling begins with a description of a four-dimensional space-time volume, the interpretation of which is then done by the analyst. For this purpose, a model of the boundaries of this volume is constructed - location in space and in time. For example, the “start date” and “end date” attributes are used to describe temporal boundaries. After describing the volume, the analyst interprets this volume.
When we interpret the volume of space-time in the form of an object, we focus our attention on statics. This can be static form, static construction or static properties. For example, a chair has a static shape and structure, a river has banks and a water surface, a clock has a structure (the shape changes), a chess game has players and a table.
To describe the construction of an object, a model is constructed as a set of related objects - parts of a simulated object. The volume interpreted as an object is divided into parts, each of which is treated as an object.
When we interpret the four-dimensional volume of space-time as a function, we focus our attention on the dynamics, which has the property of repeatability. For example, the function of demonstrating time is dynamic, but the events that accompany this dynamics belong to the same class — the turn of an arrow through a given angle (static). That is, the invariant of a function is the class of observable events.
You can often hear them say that the function of a clock is to show time. This thesis separates the object and function. In fact, both the object and the function are different interpretations of the same volume. Therefore, from the point of view of modeling it is correct to say: the volume interpreted as a clock can also be interpreted as a function of demonstrating the current time that occurs in a given area of space. Such a thesis leads to the construction of a fairly voluminous model, so analysts often reduce it to two objects — a function (demonstration of time), an object (clock), and the connection between them “executes”. This reduces the amount of modeling, but prevents to think correctly. In my interpretation of the model, the model is symmetric with respect to any of the objects of accounting — be it an object, a function, or anything else. The symmetry of the model allows you to build an adapter.
Functions are modeled using IDEF0 notation. The same notation allows modeling the constructive division of a function into parts — functional structures. This is when a function is divided into parts, each of which is treated as a function. Often this model is mistakenly called a process model.
In the same notation, you can see the beginnings of modeling the structure of a function as objects. These are the so-called "arrows below." But in this place the notation is incomplete, because it is not clear what these arrows mean - the temporal parts of the participants, the interpretation of these parts (roles), or the participants themselves. Therefore, we can say that the rudiments of modeling exist, but the notation is incomplete. I will talk about this later in more detail.
When we interpret the four-dimensional volume of space-time as an operation, we focus on dynamics, in which there are generally no invariants with respect to time, but there is an invariant with respect to the space in which the operation occurs. That is, operations occur in a certain amount, in which, from the point of view of the subject, causal relationships should be observed.
Dynamics in the operation associated with the emergence and destruction of four-dimensional volumes. These can be volumes interpreted as object states, objects, and so on. Therefore, the operation model is a set of dates of beginnings and dates of completion of some four-dimensional volumes.
The operation must be distinguished from the design of the operation. Usually, an operation model is a specific model of its construction. Occurring operation constructions are divided into two types. The first type of construction is the description of its participants, and the second is the construction in the form of sub-operations connected by temporal connections (process). So, under the model of an operation, it is often understood to enumerate its participants, that is, its construction in the form of participants. The reason for this kind of delusion was the purpose of modeling. Everyone is interested in causal relationships that led to the operation, or an explanation of the changes. Causal relationships can be explained by referring to either the obvious composition of roles or the obvious sequence of sub-operations. This is done in two steps.
First, we consider a model for the construction of an operation in the form of participating roles. To explain cause-effect relationships in a similar way, it is necessary to indicate obvious participants who will explain what is happening. For example, if we want to explain why an apple fell on the Earth, then the obvious participants in the fall operation will be: the temporal part of the apple, playing the role of body 1, the temporal part of the Earth, playing the role of body 2, and the gravitational interaction between the bodies. We referred to the law of world wideness and, thus, explained the fall of the object to Earth. To simulate this kind of explanation, it is necessary in the first step to enumerate the volumes that will be interpreted as the temporal parts of the objects, for which it is necessary to associate these volumes with those volumes that are interpreted as the Earth and the apple. In the second step, to assign to this the scope of the role of the participants: the role of the body 1 and the body 2 in the law of universal perception. Then refer to the law and get an explanation. In this case, the model of cause-and-effect relationships is the model of roles, the model of participants is the model of the performers of these roles. It is very often possible to meet a situation when the model of participants and the model of roles are confused and dumped all in one heap.
Consider the operation design model as a sequence of sub-operations. In order to explain cause-effect relationships in a similar way, it is necessary to list obvious sub-operations that will explain what is happening. For example, to explain the reason for how the application from the client was processed, it is necessary to consider the sequence of operations from receiving the application to archiving it. Looking at this sequence, it is easy to understand why all parties interested in this operation were satisfied. For this, a sequence of sub-operations and links between them are built. And here again there are two levels - on the first level, the temporal volumes and their position in space-time, on the second - the interpretation of these volumes in the form of operations and an explanation of the causal relationships between them.
So far I have not seen the standards in which these levels would be clearly separated. Now and modeling of volumes and their interpretations are piled into one heap. For example, it is often said that a process must have a result. But the result is the second level of the model. What then is the first level, in which there is a sequence, but there is neither a result nor an explanation of cause-effect relationships? Since analysts skip this level of modeling, they do not need to invent a name for this kind of objects. But, building a full-fledged model, we are forced to look for these names. Or I recently heard that the role of a business analyst is to help a business. But this is again the second level of the model, on the first level of which there is only modeling activity, but there are no goals and no causal relationships. And then how to name the first level is not clear.
The confusion of these levels is also promoted by language and the mythic consciousness inherited from our ancestors. When I read that a horse gallops, I can interpret this thesis in three different ways. I can imagine a moving object in the shape of a horse, making specific movements, I can imagine a mechanical system capable of producing such kind of movements, and I can consider the mental functions of a horse. All three modes of representation have one verb - jumping and no hint of differentiation. That is why analysts in one model often confuse all three levels: facts, causes and effects, as well as the intentions of the subjects. Unfortunately, there is no way for a language to separate these three different models.
Different subjects may converge in that they see the same participants in the operation, but disperse in the interpretation of their roles. For example, in war, the opposing sides often disagree strongly about their own and other people's roles in hostilities. It may be different - the subjects recognize the same composition of roles, but they call different participants. For example, two masses participate in the gravitational interaction, but applicants for these masses can be different, as often happens in astronomy.
Based on this, if we want to build an adapter, we must be able to sew different points of view on reality, be it physical (volumes) or mental (cause-effect relationships). How to build such models, I told earlier, is a separate and very big topic, at the first stage of which construction of independent physical and mental models is considered.
We saw that the same volume can be represented as objects of different types, we saw that an object can be represented as a structure of objects, a function - as a structure consisting of functions, or objects, an operation - as a structure, consisting of objects, or operations. One may ask: is it possible to construct an object construction from functions and operations? Is it possible to construct a construction of a function from operations, or a construction of an operation from functions? These are quite specific models, but they also have a place to be.
Thus, not only can any volume be represented as objects of different types, but objects of different types can be represented as structures consisting of objects of a different type than the object being modeled, and there are no restrictions on the types of objects.
At this point I completed the story about the types of objects and the connections between them. Now you yourself can experiment and find constructions where you used to see semantic links. You can also divide the mereological (objective) relationships between objects and imaginary cause-effect relationships, or the intention of the subject.
So far it seems that everything is logical and simple. However, let's add some complexity. Recall that the future is modeled using the space of probable outcomes, and the modeling of the past is limited by the accuracy of our knowledge. Thus, when we talk about the date of the beginning of the existence of some object, for example, a photon rocket, we say that this date lies in the future somewhere after the year 2100. When the 2050th year comes, we will clarify this date and say that the date of the beginning of the existence of such a rocket somewhere after the 2150th year. Thus, the “start date” attribute value will have a variation and this variation will change over time. Therefore, the value of the “start date” attribute is not just a value, but rather, a range of values and, since this area changes over time, it must be tied to the date of relevance of this area.
In system engineering it is considered that the life cycle of an object begins from the moment of its design and ends with the moment of its utilization. It is impossible to argue about the moment of disposal, but I would argue with the moment of the start of the design. In the design process, the planned start date of the object is discussed. And this date is not equal to the start date of the design of the object. The planned start date of the object is specified together with the refinement of the project documentation. If we accept that the date of the beginning of the existence of the object is the date of the beginning of its design, then we get an analogue of the parade of the barber, that is, nonsense. The project specifies the date of creation of the object and its disposal. If the project says that the date of creation of the object is the date of the start of its design, then a conflict will result.
→ Concepts: set, type, attribute
→ How to confuse the analyst. Part one
→ How to confuse the analyst. Part Two: What is domain modeling?
→ How to confuse the analyst. Part Three Verbs and numerals
In short, we touched upon the life cycle of an object in terms of its transformation and the transformation of our ideas about it.
')
→ How to confuse analytics - 4. Probability and accuracy
Next, I began to look at modeling operations, functions, and objects from a single point of view.
→ How to confuse analytics - 5. Conceptual apparatus
All this goes beyond modeling in the creation of information systems, but for solving the problems of integration of various information systems through the creation of an adapter between them, it is extremely necessary.
To create an adapter, we need to learn how to model the same thing in different ways: as an object and as an action. For philosophical thought, this is not new, because objects do not exist outside of time, and actions cannot be performed without objects. In fact, we have to look at the world as Buddhists look at it: the object and the action are one and the same. The need for such a worldview stems from the need to unite different points of view on the same thing happening. In this article I will consider the possible representations of reality and the mereological mereological relations (part-whole relations) between them.
Experiment on the description of hours
Let him have a watch. We give three people and ask them to describe what they saw.
- The first will say that this is an object called a clock.
- The second will say that this is a function called showcasing the current time.
- The third will say that this is a set of operations under the general name “turning the minute hand one division”.
All three will describe one four-dimensional space-time object, but they will do it in different ways.
- In the first case, we get an object model,
- in the second, the function model,
- in the third - the operation model.
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, then we need to learn how to change our point of view, and in the same volume learn to see the object , and function, and operation. To do this, we must accept the idea that the object, operation and function are different descriptions of the same space-time volume.
An object, operation or function is present in the human mind, but does not exist in reality. Not in the sense of solipsism, as the reader might think (the real world exists), but in the sense of the interpretation of this world, because the object, operation and function are different interpretations of the same space-time volume.
Modeling reality, we can easily cope with the representation of reality in the form of objects, however, we hardly know how to work with representations of reality in the form of functions and operations. And existing standards do not help us figure it out. In this article I will discuss the relationship between the representation of reality in the form of an object, function, and operation.
Modeling begins with a description of a four-dimensional space-time volume, the interpretation of which is then done by the analyst. For this purpose, a model of the boundaries of this volume is constructed - location in space and in time. For example, the “start date” and “end date” attributes are used to describe temporal boundaries. After describing the volume, the analyst interprets this volume.
Representation of reality as an object
When we interpret the volume of space-time in the form of an object, we focus our attention on statics. This can be static form, static construction or static properties. For example, a chair has a static shape and structure, a river has banks and a water surface, a clock has a structure (the shape changes), a chess game has players and a table.
To describe the construction of an object, a model is constructed as a set of related objects - parts of a simulated object. The volume interpreted as an object is divided into parts, each of which is treated as an object.
Representation of reality as a function
When we interpret the four-dimensional volume of space-time as a function, we focus our attention on the dynamics, which has the property of repeatability. For example, the function of demonstrating time is dynamic, but the events that accompany this dynamics belong to the same class — the turn of an arrow through a given angle (static). That is, the invariant of a function is the class of observable events.
You can often hear them say that the function of a clock is to show time. This thesis separates the object and function. In fact, both the object and the function are different interpretations of the same volume. Therefore, from the point of view of modeling it is correct to say: the volume interpreted as a clock can also be interpreted as a function of demonstrating the current time that occurs in a given area of space. Such a thesis leads to the construction of a fairly voluminous model, so analysts often reduce it to two objects — a function (demonstration of time), an object (clock), and the connection between them “executes”. This reduces the amount of modeling, but prevents to think correctly. In my interpretation of the model, the model is symmetric with respect to any of the objects of accounting — be it an object, a function, or anything else. The symmetry of the model allows you to build an adapter.
Functions are modeled using IDEF0 notation. The same notation allows modeling the constructive division of a function into parts — functional structures. This is when a function is divided into parts, each of which is treated as a function. Often this model is mistakenly called a process model.
In the same notation, you can see the beginnings of modeling the structure of a function as objects. These are the so-called "arrows below." But in this place the notation is incomplete, because it is not clear what these arrows mean - the temporal parts of the participants, the interpretation of these parts (roles), or the participants themselves. Therefore, we can say that the rudiments of modeling exist, but the notation is incomplete. I will talk about this later in more detail.
Representation of reality in the form of operation
When we interpret the four-dimensional volume of space-time as an operation, we focus on dynamics, in which there are generally no invariants with respect to time, but there is an invariant with respect to the space in which the operation occurs. That is, operations occur in a certain amount, in which, from the point of view of the subject, causal relationships should be observed.
Dynamics in the operation associated with the emergence and destruction of four-dimensional volumes. These can be volumes interpreted as object states, objects, and so on. Therefore, the operation model is a set of dates of beginnings and dates of completion of some four-dimensional volumes.
The operation must be distinguished from the design of the operation. Usually, an operation model is a specific model of its construction. Occurring operation constructions are divided into two types. The first type of construction is the description of its participants, and the second is the construction in the form of sub-operations connected by temporal connections (process). So, under the model of an operation, it is often understood to enumerate its participants, that is, its construction in the form of participants. The reason for this kind of delusion was the purpose of modeling. Everyone is interested in causal relationships that led to the operation, or an explanation of the changes. Causal relationships can be explained by referring to either the obvious composition of roles or the obvious sequence of sub-operations. This is done in two steps.
- In the first step, it is necessary to simulate the temporal parts of the operation. If we divide the operation by time, then these will be parts separated in time, which we will further treat as operations. If we divide the operation in space, then it will be parts that exist simultaneously throughout the entire operation. These parts will be further interpreted as roles.
- At the second step, it is necessary, appealing to the empirical experience of the subject, to explain to him the changes that have occurred in the operation.
First, we consider a model for the construction of an operation in the form of participating roles. To explain cause-effect relationships in a similar way, it is necessary to indicate obvious participants who will explain what is happening. For example, if we want to explain why an apple fell on the Earth, then the obvious participants in the fall operation will be: the temporal part of the apple, playing the role of body 1, the temporal part of the Earth, playing the role of body 2, and the gravitational interaction between the bodies. We referred to the law of world wideness and, thus, explained the fall of the object to Earth. To simulate this kind of explanation, it is necessary in the first step to enumerate the volumes that will be interpreted as the temporal parts of the objects, for which it is necessary to associate these volumes with those volumes that are interpreted as the Earth and the apple. In the second step, to assign to this the scope of the role of the participants: the role of the body 1 and the body 2 in the law of universal perception. Then refer to the law and get an explanation. In this case, the model of cause-and-effect relationships is the model of roles, the model of participants is the model of the performers of these roles. It is very often possible to meet a situation when the model of participants and the model of roles are confused and dumped all in one heap.
Consider the operation design model as a sequence of sub-operations. In order to explain cause-effect relationships in a similar way, it is necessary to list obvious sub-operations that will explain what is happening. For example, to explain the reason for how the application from the client was processed, it is necessary to consider the sequence of operations from receiving the application to archiving it. Looking at this sequence, it is easy to understand why all parties interested in this operation were satisfied. For this, a sequence of sub-operations and links between them are built. And here again there are two levels - on the first level, the temporal volumes and their position in space-time, on the second - the interpretation of these volumes in the form of operations and an explanation of the causal relationships between them.
So far I have not seen the standards in which these levels would be clearly separated. Now and modeling of volumes and their interpretations are piled into one heap. For example, it is often said that a process must have a result. But the result is the second level of the model. What then is the first level, in which there is a sequence, but there is neither a result nor an explanation of cause-effect relationships? Since analysts skip this level of modeling, they do not need to invent a name for this kind of objects. But, building a full-fledged model, we are forced to look for these names. Or I recently heard that the role of a business analyst is to help a business. But this is again the second level of the model, on the first level of which there is only modeling activity, but there are no goals and no causal relationships. And then how to name the first level is not clear.
The confusion of these levels is also promoted by language and the mythic consciousness inherited from our ancestors. When I read that a horse gallops, I can interpret this thesis in three different ways. I can imagine a moving object in the shape of a horse, making specific movements, I can imagine a mechanical system capable of producing such kind of movements, and I can consider the mental functions of a horse. All three modes of representation have one verb - jumping and no hint of differentiation. That is why analysts in one model often confuse all three levels: facts, causes and effects, as well as the intentions of the subjects. Unfortunately, there is no way for a language to separate these three different models.
Different subjects may converge in that they see the same participants in the operation, but disperse in the interpretation of their roles. For example, in war, the opposing sides often disagree strongly about their own and other people's roles in hostilities. It may be different - the subjects recognize the same composition of roles, but they call different participants. For example, two masses participate in the gravitational interaction, but applicants for these masses can be different, as often happens in astronomy.
Based on this, if we want to build an adapter, we must be able to sew different points of view on reality, be it physical (volumes) or mental (cause-effect relationships). How to build such models, I told earlier, is a separate and very big topic, at the first stage of which construction of independent physical and mental models is considered.
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 as a structure of objects, a function - as a structure consisting of functions, or objects, an operation - as a structure, consisting of objects, or operations. One may ask: is it possible to construct an object construction from functions and operations? Is it possible to construct a construction of a function from operations, or a construction of an operation from functions? These are quite specific models, but they also have a place to be.
- Object - an enterprise can be represented in the form of a structure, the elements of which are the functions: “equipment production” and “equipment sale”.
- The object - a clock can be represented as a structure consisting of the operations “turn the clock hand” (there are a lot of them, but in principle, this is possible).
- Function - the demonstration of the current time by analogy with the clock can be represented in the form of a structure consisting of the operations “turn the clock hand”.
- Representation of an operation as a set of functions is also possible. The operation “drive a stake into the ground” can be represented as a structure consisting of the functions “keep the stake in a given position” and “bang with a sledgehammer at the butt of the stake”.
Thus, not only can any volume be represented as objects of different types, but objects of different types can be represented as structures consisting of objects of a different type than the object being modeled, and there are no restrictions on the types of objects.
At this point I completed the story about the types of objects and the connections between them. Now you yourself can experiment and find constructions where you used to see semantic links. You can also divide the mereological (objective) relationships between objects and imaginary cause-effect relationships, or the intention of the subject.
How modeling looks in reality
So far it seems that everything is logical and simple. However, let's add some complexity. Recall that the future is modeled using the space of probable outcomes, and the modeling of the past is limited by the accuracy of our knowledge. Thus, when we talk about the date of the beginning of the existence of some object, for example, a photon rocket, we say that this date lies in the future somewhere after the year 2100. When the 2050th year comes, we will clarify this date and say that the date of the beginning of the existence of such a rocket somewhere after the 2150th year. Thus, the “start date” attribute value will have a variation and this variation will change over time. Therefore, the value of the “start date” attribute is not just a value, but rather, a range of values and, since this area changes over time, it must be tied to the date of relevance of this area.
In system engineering it is considered that the life cycle of an object begins from the moment of its design and ends with the moment of its utilization. It is impossible to argue about the moment of disposal, but I would argue with the moment of the start of the design. In the design process, the planned start date of the object is discussed. And this date is not equal to the start date of the design of the object. The planned start date of the object is specified together with the refinement of the project documentation. If we accept that the date of the beginning of the existence of the object is the date of the beginning of its design, then we get an analogue of the parade of the barber, that is, nonsense. The project specifies the date of creation of the object and its disposal. If the project says that the date of creation of the object is the date of the start of its design, then a conflict will result.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/339788/
All Articles