Sjir, (01)
The issue about multiple definitions, even contradictory definitions,
is not just a matter of time. Even at the same time for the same
system, different parts or subsystems may use different approximations. (02)
> I agree with you that definitions have a lifecycle and that every
> now and then you have to update the definition. A well known example
> is marriage in The Netherlands. (03)
Another example is multiple definitions for different purposes.
A road on a map is shown as a one-dimensional line. When you're
driving on it, you treat it as a two-dimensional surface But the
people who build it or fix the potholes must treat it as 3-D. (04)
> ... my experience is that it is possible for the ISO TR9007 concept
> Conceptual Schema when one consistently starts with observable forms
> of communication and then work up through the conceptual domain model
> (including extensive testing) and from there to the conceptual
> generic model (including extensive testing). (05)
How would that apply to a road? We'd like to have one name for it,
such as highway I-80. But for different purposes, we need to consider
it 1-D, 2-D, or 3-D. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (08)
|