Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "dawn" Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Modelling Considered Harmful Date: 5 May 2005 09:50:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 112 Message-ID: <1115311802.690921.319060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <4v4mj2-92l.ln1@pluto.downsfam.net> <42780a47$0$160$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <1115226381.482583.91330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <427a1abd$0$167$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.120.93.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1115311807 17457 127.0.0.1 (5 May 2005 16:50:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 16:50:07 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <427a1abd$0$167$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.120.93.7; posting-account=fLxfag0AAADzmFPc_IBdM-stGY4WCEYa Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:30710 mAsterdam wrote: > dawn wrote: > > > mAsterdam wrote: > > > >>Kenneth Downs wrote: > 2. Language does more than just model thoughts. I can't actually think of any model that only models. When using a model, you get the benefits of using that particular model. So, it makes complete sense to me that you might claim of any model that it does more than model. > > > > While it is a good idea to model for a purpose, I don't think that is > > essential to the definition of the model. > > Ah! Here we diverge. I think as soon as the model steps out of > the scope of the art-students she stops being a model. This wasn't a "dig in my heels" opinion, but the reason I said that purpose was not critical to the definition is that there needs to be room for the model itself to exist because the process of modeling had a purpose, rather than the model itself having one. We could call that the purpose of the model, if you want to stretch it. But if we have students in a grade school diagram a sentence (I wish they still did that -- my kids didn't) then we have a model of a sentence (which, with my earlier points would make it a meta model), then (are you trying to diagram THIS sentence!) and that model itself really has no purpose, but the process of modeling did have a purpose. On the other hand, if you want a statement about purpose in the definition of a model, I can live with that. > > Instead one might write "we > > are using a model to ...". If I'm working with Lincoln Logs (which > > might be differently named outside the US), my purpose might be "play" > > or even "beauty" or as a creative act. The modeling need not be for > > the purpose of studying something except perhaps in the very broadest > > terms. > > What then, makes it a model? BTW should I google for Lincoln Logs? I did and it would be better to go to amazon.com, select Toys & Games for the category and type in "Lincoln Logs" for the search. Have you ever seen a similar toy? (just curious) We have quite a collection of these in our basement. > >>>It should seem almost painfully obvious that the standard examples > >>>of employees, sales orders, inventory activity > >>>and so forth fit far more the definitions for "records" > >>>than they do for "model". > > > > They fit both because records, themselves, are modeling something. > > Not by themselves, IMO. The model lives outside the records. I still think they model propositions in a similar way to language modeling thoughts. There can also be an abstracted model that all such records use that does exist outside of any one such record. > This is, I think, the same difference as noted above. > Just records cannot make up a model. They may be part of a model, > but more is needed. Along the line of "characters are not language." I think of records as having meaning, of modeling propositions. Modeling occurs at multiple levels. > >>>Nor is the meta-data a model. > > > > of course it is! > > Same difference again or is there more to this? same, I suspect. > > > >>Indeed. It's just the record-keeping of the record-keeping > >>mechanism - registering the forms. > > > > So, it is a model about the model. > > At most a part, so not _is_. That something is a model is rarely the only statement about it, as mentioned above. So, anything where it is, in part, a model is a model as far as I'm concerned. It can surely be other things as well. > > I think the term "model" is central to all software development. That > > is what we do from start to finish and also what we produce. It is > > both the process and object of our work. So, I'm definitely not with > > you (I was referring to Kenneth here) > on this one! > > Agreed. Good deal. --dawn