| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Modelling Considered Harmful
dawn wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>
>>Kenneth Downs wrote: >>>...We need to define models and records. >> >>Do we really? Language is as language does. Language is not a >>record-keeper (database), nor is it a model.
Partly, and partly both ways:
1. Using language you can only convey a small part of your thoughts.
Even if I try really hard to model a thought using language, I loose
a lot of subtlety, I choose which things to leave out - or when I
try to understand thoughts from language used by others, I know
there is a lot lost along the way.
2. Language does more than just model thoughts.
[snip]
>>> Leaving out the silly definitions like a person posing >>> for a picture some useful definitions of model are:
>>(nothing silly about that, as I said earlier)
>>>1. A miniature representation of a thing >>>2. Something intended to serve, as a pattern of something to be >>> made >>>3. Anything which serves, or may serve, as an example for >>> imitation
>>>4. Any copy, or resemblance, more or less exact. >> >>Nah. Suggested replacement: simplified repesentation to study some >>aspects. Think chemical model, simcity, prototypes, windtunnel, >>Bohr's atom, Marx's (&Ricardo's) capitalism, the nude on the sofa. >> >> >>>5. An abstract and often simplified conceptual representation >>>of the workings of a system of objects in the real world >> >>Hm... no purpose. Ok, forget 4 and provide 5 and 6 with a purpose.
Ah! Here we diverge. I think as soon as the model steps out of the scope of the art-students she stops being a model.
> Instead one might write "we
> are using a model to ...". If I'm working with Lincoln Logs (which
> might be differently named outside the US), my purpose might be "play"
> or even "beauty" or as a creative act. The modeling need not be for
> the purpose of studying something except perhaps in the very broadest
> terms.
What then, makes it a model? BTW should I google for Lincoln Logs?
>>>... (defining 'record') >>>Others: >>> >>>1. That which serves to perpetuate a knowledge of acts or events; >>>2. anything (such as a document or a phonograph record or a >>>photograph) providing permanent evidence of or >>>information about past event >> >>Nice going. Still with you, here. Suggested addition: >>3. Form restricted registration of ... hm... of what? facts? That >>would leave out simulations, ok : >>3. Form restricted registration of propositions. >> >> >>>It should seem almost painfully obvious that the standard examples >>>of employees, sales orders, inventory activity >>>and so forth fit far more the definitions for "records" >>>than they do for "model".
Not by themselves, IMO. The model lives outside the records.
>>Both. Appearantly employees, sales orders, inventory activity and so >>forth are so common, that they serve as parts of the model we use to >>describe our day to day record-keeping problems in the abstract, i.e >>without having to resort to a specific business. Them being standard >>examples make them part of that aspect-model. >> >>>One could stretch a point and contend that a sales >>>order fits the definition of model because >>>it is "Something intended to serve, as a >>>pattern of something to be made", >>>but really it is just instructions. >> >>Generalized instructions, though. 'just instructions' would suggest >>_specific_ instructions, not usable for anything but the topic at >>hand. That's where (useful use of) the term 'model' comes in. >> >> >>>Taking the other side, if you are using a database to do a huge >>>weather simulation, then we argue that the application >>>is modelling reality, >>We? I would argue it models some aspects of reality, nothing more.
>>>but actually this is not so either. >>>The tables cannot run the simulation, they >>>can only record the results of some other program doing so. >>>Though the records are the records of a model, >>>they are still records, and are not >>>themselves a model.
This is, I think, the same difference as noted above. Just records cannot make up a model. They may be part of a model, but more is needed. Along the line of "characters are not language."
>>>So where is the harm? Well, there is always a problem when you >>>call a car a horse, because you risk stuffing >>>hay down the gas pipe and you can really >>>scratch the finish with those brushes.
>>>Any attempt to advance the theory for what they are, >>>or the theory will go off in the wrong direction.
>>'Calling a car a horse' is a mistake made often indeed. The nice >>thing about modelling is to make these acquired preconceptions (no >>this is not a contradictio in terminis, please think about it) >>explicit so we can see the differences between a car and a horse.
>>>Nor is the meta-data a model.
Same difference again or is there more to this?
>
>>Indeed. It's just the record-keeping of the record-keeping >>mechanism - registering the forms.
At most a part, so not _is_.
>>>The meta-data for the employees table does not model the >>>company, it specifies what information must be recorded to >>>conform with law and policy. since meta-data is data, the >>>meta-data is a record of what must be recorded. >>>Still no model. >>> >>>Agree? Disagree? >> >>I see benefits in using the term 'model' appropriately. >>
Agreed. Received on Thu May 05 2005 - 08:08:13 CDT
 |
 |