Re: The naive test for equality

From: dawn <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com>
Date: 10 Aug 2005 20:48:34 -0700
Message-ID: <1123732114.308246.150230_at_g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


VC wrote:
> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> news:42fa7571$0$11071$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> > VC wrote:
> >> mAsterdam wrote:
> >>>VC wrote:
> >>>>mAsterdam wrote:
> >>>>>vc wrote:
> >>>>>>David Cressey wrote:
> >>>>>>>...The two words, "synonym" and "homonym" are borrowed from
> >>>>>>>the argot of natural linguistics, but the two problems arise
> >>>>>>>whenever data is represented.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>In modelling, "synonym/homonym problems" are problems only when they
> >>>>>>are self-induced.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What do you mean by that? I've done quite some practical modelling
> >>>>>with teams. I never experienced the problem not coming up.
> >>>>
> >>>>For example ?
> >>>
> >>>What do you mean by "self-induced"?
> >>
> >> Self-inflicted (synonym)
> >
> > The "Self" being the modeller, right?
> > When modelling is done by teams there are more selves.
> > Any two people even when working together closely for
> > years have different associations and connotations
> > with some words some time.

Definitely.

> Presumably the team has meetings at which they discuss the stuff they
> interested in and come to some agreement as to what terminology they want
> to use and what the terms are supposed to mean. It's, like, introduction to
> modelling 101. Besides, you describe a hypothetical terminology
> selection/definition process yourself, so it's not clear what the problem
> might be unless the "team" neglects to identify, say, data objects and
> relationships [self-infilcts potential pain because of not doing required
> work].

>

> >
> > Another, less cryptic example:
> >
> > Say a team tries to meet the requirement that it should
> > be possible to find out where a piece of information came from.
> >
> > One thinks 'origin', another one thinks 'source'. (1)
> >
> > Let's say they talk about it and decide on 'source'.
> >
> > One thinks 'the source code of a program' because
> > yesterday he spent some time finding a source-file,
> > another one thinks 'the external agent providing the
> > piece of information' because he just finished
> > a business process analysis session. (2)
>

> You are kidding, right ? If the modellers chose the name/label "source" and
> did not define what entity the name refers to, then the name is just
> meaningless, like say "fshsalkfd". Apparently, your hypothetical modellers
> are not modellers but some kind of impostors.

It is usually much more subtle than that. Everyone agrees that we need to know whether or not someone is a fullTimeStudent. Ignore the fact that this would likely be a derived attribute -- it illustrates the problem. After some sessions with folks from many departments, the analyst works to get more precision and sits down with someone who knows all of the tuition rules, along with another person ('cause the analyst is no rookie) and they nail down this attribute with the precision of a surgeon.

The system goes live and the financial aid people are irate! Federal aid has just been removed from students because they were no longer flagged as being a fullTimeStudent when by the standards for this financial aid, they clearly ARE a fullTimeStudent.

Then you find out that these two departments use the very same term and might even both have external reasons to use the very same term, and they use it with just slightly different meanings.

It does help if there is a well-maintained and easily used catalog / dictionary / metadata repository. But words are just that. --dawn Received on Thu Aug 11 2005 - 05:48:34 CEST

Original text of this message