Re: The naive test for equality
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].
>> > piece of information' because he just finished
> >
> > 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
> > 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.