Difficulties in modeling operations in standard ways. 4-object modeling, problem statement

    While 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 such an analysis anywhere, not even in Chris Partridge's book, which I really love: Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use . Therefore, I hope that the article will be easy and useful at the same time.


    All the models that we build must somehow model 4-dimensional space-time, because that's how we imagine the world around us. This is described in the book by Chris Partridge. Even what seems to be irrelevant to 4-space turns out to be one upon close examination. True, not always existing in reality, sometimes it’s the world we imagine. Anyone who is interested in how this happens, I recommend that you read this book carefully. However, I advise you not to pay attention to the definition of an 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 model 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 coordinates depending on time to this drawing, we get a surface model of 4-D space - time, which models a bolt.

    However, what is surgery? This is also a 4-dimensional object, which, like a bolt, is limited by certain boundaries in space and time. True, imagining the operation as a 4-object is much more difficult. There are three reasons why it is difficult for us to do this.

    Firstly, unlike a bolt, the operation has a less dense structure. Can a bolt intersect in spacetime with another bolt? Experience suggests no. Operations, unlike bolts, are less dense. Therefore, operations can intersect in one space - time. If the operations were as dense as the bolt, then 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 descriptions of three-dimensional space and time are separated in our language. Since we cannot move backward in time, this fourth coordinate of our world looks different to us than spatial coordinates. Therefore, in language, the representation of the three coordinates of space differs from the representation of the fourth coordinate - time, and those objects whose shape and composition changes in time are perceived by us differently than those objects whose shape and composition do not change in time.

    For example, the shape and composition of the bolt are constant over time. Therefore, we can imagine a bolt as a 3-object. Imagine an operation just as simply no longer possible, because its form and composition change over time. However, a bolt from the point of view of a micro-observer, who could see quantum leaps, would look no less strange: like an object whose shape and composition are constantly changing. It would also be difficult for such 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 characteristics of our language, which, in turn, implements the patterns of our mythical consciousness. The language has members of the sentence: subject, predicate and addition, which model the actor, the action he performs and the object of activity. From this linguistic pattern it follows that our usual sentences model activity, and in the theory of activity, 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 (e.g., deer), or inanimate (e.g., Sun) object. But in the models that analysts build, only the subject can be an actor. Otherwise, if we say that something inanimate performs an operation, we thereby endow the inanimate with the ability to conduct rational activity, that is, animate objects. If we are sufficiently disciplined as analysts, then we can’t say that the robot performed the action, we can only say that the action happened and the robot was one of its participants. Thus, using the theory of activity, we can describe only those operations that are committed by the subject, and only from one point of view - from the point of view of this subject. If we need to simulate operations that occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova explosion), or operations whose interpretation we would like to see from different points of view (for example, a sale and purchase operation), then such a metamodel of operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a modeling method, and it is the modeling of operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I will talk about them in another article. we can only say that the action happened and the robot was one of its participants. Thus, using the theory of activity, we can describe only those operations that are committed by the subject, and only from one point of view - from the point of view of this subject. If we need to simulate operations that occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova explosion), or operations whose interpretation we would like to see from different points of view (for example, a sale and purchase operation), then such a metamodel of operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a modeling method, and it is the modeling of operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I will talk about them in another article. we can only say that the action happened and the robot was one of its participants. Thus, using the theory of activity, we can describe only those operations that are committed by the subject, and only from one point of view - from the point of view of this subject. If we need to simulate operations that occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova explosion), or operations whose interpretation we would like to see from different points of view (for example, a sale and purchase operation), then such a metamodel of operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a modeling method, and it is the modeling of operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I will talk about them in another article. using the theory of activity, we can describe only those operations that are committed by the subject, and only from one point of view - from the point of view of this subject. If we need to simulate operations that occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova explosion), or operations whose interpretation we would like to see from different points of view (for example, a sale and purchase operation), then such a metamodel of operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a modeling method, and it is the modeling of operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I will talk about them in another article. using the theory of activity, we can describe only those operations that are committed by the subject, and only from one point of view - from the point of view of this subject. If we need to simulate operations that occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova explosion), or operations whose interpretation we would like to see from different points of view (for example, a sale and purchase operation), then such a metamodel of operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a modeling method, and it is the modeling of operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I will talk about them in another article. occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova outbreak), or an operation whose interpretation we would like to see from different points of view (for example, a sale and purchase operation), then such a metamodel of operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a modeling method, and it is the modeling of operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I will talk about them in another article. occurred without the participation of the subject (for example, a supernova outbreak), or an operation whose interpretation we would like to see from different points of view (for example, a sale and purchase operation), then such a metamodel of operation does not suit us. To solve such problems, we must learn to model operations differently. There is such a modeling method, and it is the modeling of operations as 4-objects. By the way, the same applies to business functions, but I will talk about them in another article.

    As I said earlier, a bolt and an operation are four-dimensional objects in the space-time continuum. What is the difference between a bolt and an operation? No more than the ways of describing one and the second. I have long wanted to pose a general problem and understand what methods of describing 4-objects exist in general, and with what types of objects they are usually associated with. For this, it was necessary to take two steps: first make time and space equal, create a language for describing such a world and classify the ways to describe this world, and then map the results back into standard language patterns. I did this, and in the following articles I will try to expound.

    I note that for physics, equality between spatial coordinates and time has long been the norm. Recently, philosophers have discovered this equality for themselves, but so far this knowledge is not available to ontological engineers. Let’s try to take advantage of this view and see what discoveries this will lead us to.

    Also popular now: