Problem statement: Accounting objects and modeling of relations between them

    Models are created by the analyst in order to make this or that part of the subject area understandable. The model is built using accounting objects and relationships between them. The accounting object is understood as everything that we named: assets, processes, events, structures, sets, etc. At the same time, it seems that we all know what “understanding” is, however, it is worth talking about this in a little more detail.

    As a result of training, a person gets used to the fact that there are some patterns that repeat from time to time. For example, if you lift a stone and release it, it will fall to the ground. And so it will be whenever this pattern repeats. The knowledge that an object falls to the ground is an empirical experience that requires no explanation. To everyone who lives on Earth, this fact seems obvious, requires neither explanation nor proof, that is, it is understandable. This knowledge looks like:

    1. Empirical experience is a set (class) of situations that are regarded by this subject as similar to each other (the subject dropped objects). New situations are classified by the subject as similar to previous ones and replenish the class of situations of the same type.
    2. A pattern of situations (type of situations, or model of situations) that is present in the consciousness of the subject and in which it is written that whenever this happens, the body falls to the ground. The pattern is associated with empirical experience, or with a class of situations.

    Total: there are situations whose models are stored in the mind of the subject, there is a model of these models - a pattern that is also stored in the mind of the subject. Together, this gives a person a sense of understanding.

    However, for a person born in outer space and having spent his whole life in zero gravity, the fact that a stone falls on the ground will not be obvious and will require explanation.



    The analyst, building models for the target audience, reduces something unknown for this audience to the patterns known to this audience. When the reader “reads” this model and sees how the unknown has been reduced to a set of well-known patterns, he goes through the first level of understanding - the assumption that the model is correct. (In this case, we must separately talk about the rules of such a conclusion and methods of proof). Further, the reader can create a pattern that is inherent in this model and train in applying it in other places. When he succeeds, a person goes to the second level of understanding - the ability to use a new pattern. Therefore, understanding is associated with the following mental functions:

    1. Ability to highlight accounting objects
    2. The ability to build patterns, or types
    3. The ability to classify accounting objects according to constructed types
    4. The ability to build relationships between accounting objects
    5. The ability to draw conclusions.

    But before building relationships between accounting objects, the analyst must build a reality model that describes the relationships of accounting objects in space-time. For example, before saying that the ropes of the bridge hold the roadway, it must be said that there are ropes, there is the roadway, that one end of each rope has a common spatio-temporal part with the roadway, or, what is the same, the ropes and the roadway intersect in space - time. Only then can the subject interpret these common parts as fastening the cables to the bridge, which transfer the load from the canvas to the cables. Without highlighting these common parts, it is possible to say that the guys hold the canvas, but such a model will contain a conclusion without facts, based on which this conclusion was made. It’s as if we knew the court’s decision, but didn’t know the facts,

    Very often metamodels offer the modeling of such conclusions without modeling facts, on the basis of which it would be possible to draw such conclusions, for example, in the IDEF0 metamodel, functions are interconnected by flows of objects, and do not have common parts that would make it possible to conclude that there are flows. As a result, we are not able to construct different interpretations of the facts, or we cannot build models that take into account multiple points of view. For example, in IDEF0 it is impossible to simulate the fact of the provision of consulting services, because by the definition of a service, it is not accompanied by a material carrier, and, therefore, there are no flows of objects. The relationships between accounting objects in 4-dimensional space-time have not yet been carefully studied, so the construction of models in which facts would be modeled is difficult. My task in the following articles is to describe possible relationships, classify them, and tell which speech turns hide one or another spatio-temporal relationship. In the end, I will tell you what the function of the clock is, how this function is associated with the class of events and I will talk about this class of events.

    Also popular now: