Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 9, 12:09 pm, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >All the above comes down to definition. Your usage of "model" is
> >different to mine. I restrict it to the narrow sense of the
> >representation of knowledge (in the form of attributes and
> >relationships) about external entities. I define "simulation" to be
>
> By that, a clay model of an automobile would not be a model. I
> think you have an overly-restrictive definition.

The subject of this thread is a comparison of OO and RM. Does it matter if it doesn't encompass clay models? How is it too restrictive for database systems, RM or cdt?

> >about creating a working machine that happens to *mimic* reality with
> >no intention of storing knowledge about external entities. Are you
> >saying such a distinction doesn't exist? If so then we disagree. If
> >it is merely over what the words "model" and "simulation" mean there
> >is nothing interesting to discuss.
>
> A simulation is a model.
>
> A model is a restricted representation of something. The
> simplifications depend on what the model is to be used for. If a
> model for aerodynamic testing, the shape of a car would be modelled.
> The sound system probably would not be in the model (though the aerial
> might be).

Yes according to your definition a simulation is a model. Received on Fri Feb 09 2007 - 12:58:15 CET