[Fwd: Re: [om-list] Re: Responses]

[Luke Call]

You're far from saying anything bad. I have been buried all
week--finally got up at a reasonable time today and hoping to reply.
Have had stuff to send and no time to do it (yet).

Tom and other Packers wrote:

 > Om
 >
 > Did everyone just coincidentally get busy at the same time, or did I say
 > something really bad?  I haven't heard from anyone since I sent this 
letter.
 >
 > tomp
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: Tom and other Packers <TomP at Burgoyne.Com>
 > To: OM List <OM-List at OneModel.Org>
 > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 6:31 AM
 > Subject: Responses
 >
 >
 > Lee:
 >
 > Yes, I believe that the algorithm will be based on internodes, perhaps
 > in all cases.  I call all operations on nodal data "intranodes", and this
 > includes "functions" or "procedures" in a program, and other 
algorithms.  I
 > won't go into why they are called "intranodes", except to point out that
 > there is a reason they look a lot like "internodes", in name.  One 
reason is
 > that they will probably be based on internodes.  I will go into great 
detail
 > in describing this relation between internodes and intranodes in the
 > MetaMathesis Essay.
 >
 > And a big *YES* to your comparing the algorithm to the data structure.
 > If I wanted to be really careful with my language, I would never say 
such a
 > thing, because one is static and one is dynamic; but I want to agree with
 > what you are saying; it's a good insight.
 >
 > Yes, we are trying to model truth better.  I don't think that it is
 > presumptuous in all cases, if someone says that his model is closer 
to truth
 > than someone else's.  In some cases, this is not presumptuous, it's an
 > obvious fact -- based on *one* assumption: that a model which is 
incoherent,
 > i.e. self-inconsistent cannot be adherent, i.e. consistent with reality,
 > i.e. truthful.
 >
 > Can someone (Mark?) show me how your propose nodes and internodes to be
 > both the same and different?  I want something about as detailed as the
 > "pseudocode" level of description.  Will it be simply a singular C++ 
class
 > that both node and internode inherit from?
 >
 > Lee, I think it would be cost-effective is most people coded at first,
 > and then most people tested later, after a large amount of coding was 
done.
 > So, in this sense, I was sort of half-expecting that you might want to do
 > some coding.  But, it's not a big deal.  There are other benefits to 
having
 > fewer people do the coding.
 >
 > Oh boy ... Yes, that's basically the theory we've talked about, thus
 > far, i.e. "every thing has some type of relationship or influence on 
every
 > other thing, and that given a set of knowledge about these things, 
that usef
 > ul comparisons and analysis can be made."  But there is oh so much 
more to
 > our eventual design that we haven't even scratched the surface of, yet.
 > This is where algorithm differs from model.  I don't think that deductive
 > inference will require much more than this type of theory, but inductive
 > inference probably will.  And to do anything right, I think we will 
require
 > a lot more theory.
 >
 > Luke,
 >
 > I didn't mean to sound like are plans were set in stone or anything.
 > I'm all for working out the design first.  If anything, I'm for 
working out
 > the design (the theory) to a fault.  I don't plan to get serious 
about any
 > design until I finish my PhD dissertation (hopefully on a subject very
 > similar to this project).
 >
 > I had envisioned that we would work out the design somewhat by making a
 > fairly sophisticated prototype on one platform, and then try to port 
it to
 > other OS's later.  Even if we completely rewrite the thing using a
 > completely different language ...
 >
 > Actually, starting with another language, something more
 > prototype-oriented, would be fine with me.  But I'm not very familiar 
with
 > anything but C/C++ right now.  I'm about to learn LISP, which I've 
been told
 > would be very useful in combination with C/C++ (division of labour) for a
 > project like ours, but I don't remember why.
 >
 > About UML, etc ... I've read about this stuff before, (my object
 > oriented programming class was based on the rational philosophy) and 
I have
 > mixed feeling about it, mostly leaning toward the negative side.  I 
am all
 > for learning a good strategy for writing software, but there is so 
much of a
 > philosophy of modelling arbitrary information -- similar to what we are
 > trying to do -- in Rational, that I fear that their method may warp our
 > OneModel into something similar to present popular OOA/OOD (object 
oriented
 > analysis and design), or prescribe information modelling paradigms 
that are
 > inconsistent with mathesis.
 >
 > Maybe we're talking about two different levels here, such that a class
 > is not a node, but a node (and an internode and a metainternode) may be
 > defined as a class or object; and the two levels can remain pretty much
 > isolated, and not interfere with each other.  But if our OneModel is 
truly
 > good
 > at modelling arbitrary concepts, it should apply to that higher level 
even
 > better than the OOA/OOD model does.  And from what I know about the OO
 > paradigm, I don't like it at all.  But we've been through this, about 
a year
 > or two ago, so ... never mind.
 >
 > Nonetheless, I don't think I've learned enough about UML etc. to make
 > any decisions, so I will find one of the books you suggest, and read it.
 > Then I will talk more about it, if I still have disagreements with it.
 >
 > As always, I like Mark's responses.
 >
 > ciao,
 > tomp
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > om-list mailing list
 > om-list at onemodel.org
 > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/om-list
 >
 >
 >
 >

-- 
Help us put all knowledge in one bucket: www.onemodel.org.
Note to friends/family: my email address is changing from
lcall at pobox.com to lacall at onemodel.org.


-- 
Help us put all knowledge in one bucket: www.onemodel.org.
Note to friends/family: my email address is changing from 
lcall at pobox.com to lacall at onemodel.org.