This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the following text in the history section which relates OBR to ER:
Now the section was removed twince by 118.67.22.34 with other explaination:
Now both arguments make no sense to me. Terry Halpin is a notable scientist, who is suppost to create original research. It doesn't really matter much where he published his work. So if there is something wrong with the text please explain first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 11:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article on " Fact", the term "Fact" is commonly used to refer to something that is actually the case. In other words, a fact is a proposition that is verifiably true.
Object-role modeling(ORM) uses the terms "Fact" and "Fact Type" to refer to the propositions that are used by a modeler to describe a Universe of Discourse.
For example, the proposition "Fred lives in London" is called a "Fact" that is an instance of the "Fact Type" : "Person lives in City". However, there is nothing in ORM that prevents the modeler from entering propositions such as: "The Unicorn with the name Fred lives in London."
In other words, "Facts" in ORM can refer to things that are actually the case or to things that are fictional.
It seems to me that the ability to model both fact and fiction is a useful property of ORM but I wonder if the ORM community should stop using the word "Fact" and use a different term instead.
Any suggestions or comments?
It seems to me that it is too simplistic to say that a "Fact" can be either "actually the case" or "fictonal".
For example, according to Searle, there can be objective facts about subjective (aka fictional) things.
Searle uses the example of money. If you have some currency in your pocket (say a $20 bill) then it is an objective fact that you have a $20 bill in your pocket. However, money itself is a human invention - in other words money is a fiction that most people accept because it is convenient.
So, I think that this problem cannot be solved just by using a different term such as "proposition". Ken Evans 10:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans ( talk • contribs)
Not only is the article body overloaded with ELs, the EL section is as well. I have removed the following to bring that section into compliance with guidelines. I've copied the deleted entries here:
Joja lozzo 05:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Object-Role Modeling →
Object-role modeling – ORM is a generic concept, not a proper noun phrase, and should be lower case per
MOS:CAPS. I suspect it has been capitalized to illuminate the ORM acronym but that is contrary to
capitalization guidelines.
Joja
lozzo
05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Hi,
I'm trying to provide a major rewrite of this article, to improve certain issues.
The rewrite addresses the following points: (a) To point out the linguistic and language-philosophical roots of the object-role model. (b) To clarify the objectives of the object-role model in the context of information systems. (c) To improve neutrality by reducing some of the bias of the current article towards a particular version of or tool for object-role modeling. (d) To improve accuracy regarding the history of object-role modeling. (e) To clarify some terminological issues, e.g.: object-entity-thing; role-predicator; fact-fiction; the distinction between the meta model (the object-role model in this case) and a conceptual schema (including or excluding instances) as a specific population of the meta model; etc.
Could those of you interested in the subject please give me some feedback.
My rewrite proposal is currently in my sandbox User:Hfroehn/sandbox
(I guess this is readable from the outside; if not, please let me know)
Cheers,
(HendrikFroehn@gmail.com) Hendrik Froehn ( talk) 18:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mdd,
Thanks for looking at my draft and for your comments. I still think that the current article needs to be improved wrt. to the above points (a)...(e). I will try to work out a new draft, according to what you said. But this will take some time.
Cheers
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the following text in the history section which relates OBR to ER:
Now the section was removed twince by 118.67.22.34 with other explaination:
Now both arguments make no sense to me. Terry Halpin is a notable scientist, who is suppost to create original research. It doesn't really matter much where he published his work. So if there is something wrong with the text please explain first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 11:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article on " Fact", the term "Fact" is commonly used to refer to something that is actually the case. In other words, a fact is a proposition that is verifiably true.
Object-role modeling(ORM) uses the terms "Fact" and "Fact Type" to refer to the propositions that are used by a modeler to describe a Universe of Discourse.
For example, the proposition "Fred lives in London" is called a "Fact" that is an instance of the "Fact Type" : "Person lives in City". However, there is nothing in ORM that prevents the modeler from entering propositions such as: "The Unicorn with the name Fred lives in London."
In other words, "Facts" in ORM can refer to things that are actually the case or to things that are fictional.
It seems to me that the ability to model both fact and fiction is a useful property of ORM but I wonder if the ORM community should stop using the word "Fact" and use a different term instead.
Any suggestions or comments?
It seems to me that it is too simplistic to say that a "Fact" can be either "actually the case" or "fictonal".
For example, according to Searle, there can be objective facts about subjective (aka fictional) things.
Searle uses the example of money. If you have some currency in your pocket (say a $20 bill) then it is an objective fact that you have a $20 bill in your pocket. However, money itself is a human invention - in other words money is a fiction that most people accept because it is convenient.
So, I think that this problem cannot be solved just by using a different term such as "proposition". Ken Evans 10:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans ( talk • contribs)
Not only is the article body overloaded with ELs, the EL section is as well. I have removed the following to bring that section into compliance with guidelines. I've copied the deleted entries here:
Joja lozzo 05:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Object-Role Modeling →
Object-role modeling – ORM is a generic concept, not a proper noun phrase, and should be lower case per
MOS:CAPS. I suspect it has been capitalized to illuminate the ORM acronym but that is contrary to
capitalization guidelines.
Joja
lozzo
05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Hi,
I'm trying to provide a major rewrite of this article, to improve certain issues.
The rewrite addresses the following points: (a) To point out the linguistic and language-philosophical roots of the object-role model. (b) To clarify the objectives of the object-role model in the context of information systems. (c) To improve neutrality by reducing some of the bias of the current article towards a particular version of or tool for object-role modeling. (d) To improve accuracy regarding the history of object-role modeling. (e) To clarify some terminological issues, e.g.: object-entity-thing; role-predicator; fact-fiction; the distinction between the meta model (the object-role model in this case) and a conceptual schema (including or excluding instances) as a specific population of the meta model; etc.
Could those of you interested in the subject please give me some feedback.
My rewrite proposal is currently in my sandbox User:Hfroehn/sandbox
(I guess this is readable from the outside; if not, please let me know)
Cheers,
(HendrikFroehn@gmail.com) Hendrik Froehn ( talk) 18:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mdd,
Thanks for looking at my draft and for your comments. I still think that the current article needs to be improved wrt. to the above points (a)...(e). I will try to work out a new draft, according to what you said. But this will take some time.
Cheers