3 ms·

> are not interested in a 100% authentic modeling of the problem A model is an approximation. There is no such thing as "100% authentic modeling" for anything

> are not interested in a 100% authentic modeling of the problem A model is an approximation. There is no such thing as "100% authentic modeling" for anything non-trivial, and insisting on it grows models that aren't particularly useful. They might _seem_ simple at first glance because of their "purity", but a) they're not _actually 100% accurate, and b) are usually very fragile on revision, becoming, ironically, quite complex. > "booleans go in as booleans, if you want who, when, why, those are 3 new facts next to the boolean". ...you have now replicated the information 3 times in a way that includes risk of going out of sync. Congratulations.

bob1029 6y ago
A model turns into a gamble if you throw your hands up and claim that its impossible to have a 100% authentic model of a domain. If you truly believe this to be the case, then you have not tread far enough into the forest of SQL, 3NF, BCNF, and the relational calculus. It is possible to use math to prove that a problem domain is modeled appropriately. With SQL and views, you can construct extremely high-order representations of domains that would otherwise be viewed as pure magic by any outside onlookers. The only way any of this becomes possible is if you have solid foundations and the courage to produce exceptionally clean models. Yes, you will definitely screw it up a few times. We started over 4-5 times. Plan to iterate. Start with your domain modeling. You can do this shit in excel. No one gets too salty when you have to throw away a spreadsheet.
- LaGrange 6y ago
  > A model turns into a gamble if you throw your hands up and claim that its impossible to have a 100% authentic model of a domain. ...no it doesn't. I've deleted the claim that you don't know what a model is from the previous comment, but now it's clear: you don't know what a model is. > If you truly believe this to be the case, then you have not tread far enough into the forest of SQL, 3NF, BCNF, and the relational calculus. ...you're mixing models with mathematical theories in there, and none of these are "100% authentic models" of anything. Unless by authentic you mean "not copied", I suppose. > It is possible to use math to prove that a problem domain is modeled appropriately. ...appropriately doesn't mean 100% accurate (which is _I think_ the word you were looking for). That's not how models work. > The only way any of this becomes possible is if you have solid foundations and the courage to produce exceptionally clean models. "Clean" doesn't imply "accurate" at all. It does sometimes help with being useful or easy to implement, but it usually _sacrifices_ accuracy. Like the two main and often contrary properties of models are "accuracy" and "usefulness." That's, like, first five pages of any epistemology handbook. > You can do this shit in excel. If you start in excel, you ain't getting anywhere. And this is not, by the way, a dunk on Excel.

bob1029 6y ago

A model turns into a gamble if you throw your hands up and claim that its impossible to have a 100% authentic model of a domain. If you truly believe this to be the case, then you have not tread far enough into the forest of SQL, 3NF, BCNF, and the relational calculus. It is possible to use math to prove that a problem domain is modeled appropriately. With SQL and views, you can construct extremely high-order representations of domains that would otherwise be viewed as pure magic by any outside onlookers. The only way any of this becomes possible is if you have solid foundations and the courage to produce exceptionally clean models. Yes, you will definitely screw it up a few times. We started over 4-5 times. Plan to iterate. Start with your domain modeling. You can do this shit in excel. No one gets too salty when you have to throw away a spreadsheet.

LaGrange 6y ago
> A model turns into a gamble if you throw your hands up and claim that its impossible to have a 100% authentic model of a domain. ...no it doesn't. I've deleted the claim that you don't know what a model is from the previous comment, but now it's clear: you don't know what a model is. > If you truly believe this to be the case, then you have not tread far enough into the forest of SQL, 3NF, BCNF, and the relational calculus. ...you're mixing models with mathematical theories in there, and none of these are "100% authentic models" of anything. Unless by authentic you mean "not copied", I suppose. > It is possible to use math to prove that a problem domain is modeled appropriately. ...appropriately doesn't mean 100% accurate (which is _I think_ the word you were looking for). That's not how models work. > The only way any of this becomes possible is if you have solid foundations and the courage to produce exceptionally clean models. "Clean" doesn't imply "accurate" at all. It does sometimes help with being useful or easy to implement, but it usually _sacrifices_ accuracy. Like the two main and often contrary properties of models are "accuracy" and "usefulness." That's, like, first five pages of any epistemology handbook. > You can do this shit in excel. If you start in excel, you ain't getting anywhere. And this is not, by the way, a dunk on Excel.