Re: The naive test for equality
Date: 11 Aug 2005 07:51:07 -0700
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > VC wrote:
> >> 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.
> Apparently, the analysts made a mistake in assuming that the set of
> fullTimeStudents is equal to the set of studentsEligibleForFinancialAid.
In this case, yes, but it also happens frequently where such a term is used the same when the analysis is done, but something changes (government regulation or something more subtle) that changes the meaning slightly for one group and not another, so that these differences creep in.
> did not claim that one can correctly analyze a complex system at one go,
> it's an iterative process of trial end error.
> Besides, your example is
> *not* about naming issues (as you understand yourself)
> -- presumably there
> was no ambiguity about the "student" entity .
There are always differences of opinion about what constitutes a student on a campus. Finance people often use the term as if the student were the same as a corporate customer. Student = Customer. If someone has received some approval to audit a course for zero dollars, the instructor might consider them a student. That is just an example, but the point is that entity names are also just words and are interpreted by humans, each of whom brings a different context to the meaning of the word.
I've been reading and writing too fast lately and might have missed the point, so I'll re-read the thread before posting again. cheers! --dawn Received on Thu Aug 11 2005 - 16:51:07 CEST