Re: The naive test for equality
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:58:07 +0200
> VC wrote:
>>dawn wrote: >>>VC wrote: >>>>...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.
This assumes perfect and lasting information at modelling time.
> 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.
>>I did not claim that one can correctly >>analyze a complex system at one go, >>it's an iterative process of trial end error.
> and needs to be attended to for the life of the attribute name
>>Besides, your example is *not* about naming >>issues (as you understand yourself)
> I thought it was about the name and def of an attribute.
>>-- 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
This is a sub-thread about synonym/homonym problems, but this group does not tend to change the subject line appropriately (I tried a few times, but it did not really work). In the sub-thread your contribution is right on the mark, IMO. Received on Thu Aug 11 2005 - 19:58:07 CEST