Abstraction of the Location_Of Meronymy

[Hans]

Hi all,

Autsch: It seems that UML and object orientation were two different pair of shoes!
And for this, I'm with the 1st one:
It ** doesn't matter what the beer is knowing about me,
but it ** matters that I (the container) know about the beer!

Prost!

[jeshaw2]

Hans

The Location_Of meronymy deals with the relationship of one location within another location and not with the issue of what is located where.  This requires that both the whole and the part be of type location.  

Since neither the beer nor the can are locations, the Location_Of policies do not apply.

I would suggest that both the beer and the can are collaborating parts of a can_of_beer whole.  Might I suggest the Part_Of meronymy?

Does that get both shoes on the same foot?  Or, is it both feet in the same shoe?  :-/

[sargasso]

The Location_Of meronymy deals with the relationship of one location within another location and not with the issue of what is located where.  This requires that both the whole and the part be of type location.

Now I get it! (I think)
"The can of beer is in the fridge" = is located relationship

                                                                                 is located
can::object ------------------------> fridge::location

"The aforementioned fridge is the fridge at Paolo's house."


fridge::location ------Location_Of---------------<> Paolo's house::location

Normally, one would shortcut the above and simply state that "The beer is in Paolo's fridge" and we could argue that 'Paolo' is simply a qualifier.  However, 'Paolo' (the person not the location) may qualify (own) many such fridges. So the first representation, formally defining the location is IMO more precise.

Am I getting there yet?
bruce

Disclaimer: The above statements are unfortunately in the problem domain rather than the solution domain.  The two locations referred to are over 4000k away.

[Hans]

No Sargasso,

you didn't get it: as old as object orientation in design is the golden rule that containing objects must not know anything about its containers.
That's all.

Cheers
Hans

[Hans]

Ups,

I mean contained objects must not know of its containers.

Cheers
Hans

[jeshaw2]

Meronymic relationships are about how Parts are related to a cognitive whole, not about containers.  Meronymy is more concerned about how ounces of beer are related to a gallon of beer, or how individual players are related to a team, or how leaves are related to bushes, or how the space in the fridge is related to the space in Paolo's house.

The shelves in the fridge (a part) are related meronymicly to the fridge (the whole), but the can of beer in the fridge is not part of the fridge it is simply contained by the fridge.  I agree that the fridge may not be worth much without the can of beer, but it would still be a fridge with all its functionality intact.  Without the shelves it would still be a fridge too, but one with a loss in functionality.

Hans may be correct about containers (I'll have to take a look at the thread on containers), but this thread is about Meronymy; and that's a horse of a different color.

Now, where's the beer?  

[sargasso]

Now, where's the beer?  Grin

Due to a sudden and unexpected collapse of the wave function I am sad to report that the location of the beer is no longer determinable in this universe....hic.

bruce

[mikewhit]

Hang on, I thought that if the wave function collapsed you could determine the location ?

From: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HNTCTWF.php (just Googled) :

In the standard quantum theory, a quantum system is in a superposition of states or in quantum entanglement, which is invariably destroyed by measurement. This is referred to as the ‘collapse’ of the wave function - of probability amplitudes - that defines the system, so the system ends up in one definite state and no other. In case of Schrödinger’s cat, this collapse of the wave function amounts to being found definitely dead or definitely alive

Hence in our case, the beer will then have a definite state.

[thomaskilian]

No. According to Heisenberg you can determine either position or impulse, not both. If the wave function collapses, you can determine none. (I'm no physicist though)

[jeshaw2]

In Bruce's case, I think the beer is moving and thus has no precise location.

[sargasso]

Jim:

Hang on, I thought that if the wave function collapsed you could determine the location

Hence in our case, the beer will then have a definite state.

You are "correct" in both statements.  In fact both the beer's location and state are now the same viz "GONE!"
All merynomy's, collections and realizable associations regarding that beer are now null and void.

Here we have an example of an implementable method "bruce.beer[1..*].dispose()" that affects all of Mike and Paolo's meronymy's instantaneously.

I trust that add's value to this discussion....  otherwise I may get depressed and go drown my sorrows.....

Thomas:

According to Heisenberg you can determine either position or impulse, not both.

However, that has nothing to do with the wave function (retracted on further discussion) - the cat experiment is germain.

Jim:

the beer is moving and thus has no precise location

as stated above, the beer is no more. The beer as we know it has dissociated into component particles.  Not even Dr McCoy can state "It's beer Jim, but not as we know it"

================
Now to get back the more serious stuff,  for the purpose of the discussion I defined the fridge object that is located in Paolo's house as a location not as a container.  Similar to "Lawrence is at Oasis 12 in the Sahara".    If the object "Oasis 12" is unique in the worldview of the participants in the conversation then they would not need to clarify Lawrence's position by what I now understand to be a Location_Of meronymy... "Oasis 12 in the Sahara".
I am still not sure of this though as it is looking at an instance level rather than an abstraction level. But until I get it sorted I'll have to resort asking you about instance models.

Jim, have I got it yet???
bruce

[Hans]

>the cat experiment is germain..

Sorry, Sargasso,
That's wrong in a 2fold way: you mean german, not germain, and no: it's **not** german it's Austrian!

Hans

[sargasso]

No Hans, I meant germane
bruce

[jeshaw2]

Sargasso;
The English language can be so difficult at times.  I'm beginning to think that locationOf is an unfortunate choice for a name of this Meronymy for it brings much opportunity for confusion.  Perhaps, locationWithin would be a better choice, but it breaks the xxxOf naming pattern.

I think a major part of your confusion can be cleared up if I can get you to understand just what a Meronymy is all about.  (And from what you said, I think you've got it, but lets nail this thing down tight if we can.)  Literally, all Meronyms are about what parts things are made from.  There is no exception to this.  An engine (part) is partOf a car (thing).  Flour (part) is a substanceOf of bread (thing).  A liter (part) is a portionOf a gallon (thing).  Singers (part) are membersOf a choir (thing).  The pattern here is the relationship of a Whole (thing) to its Parts.  That's what Meronymy is all about.  

Meronyms describe the part-whole (a.k.a., Has-a) relation. (think Aggregation) It is a fairly complex relation which attempts to take into account the degree of differentiation of the parts with respect to the whole and also the role that these parts play with respect to their whole.

We distinguish 6 kinds of Meronyms which differ according the functionalities, the spatial cohesion and the degree of dissimilarity between the parts and their whole.   We are discussing Meronyms in the context of Collections because we are asserting that the relationships between the Collection (the whole) and the collected Items (the Parts) are always one of these six meronymic relationships.

The locationOf Meronymy deals with how one spatial area is related to another spatial area.  In this context, when I speak of Canada as a whole, I'm referring to the area on the planet which is outlined by a geographic boundary.  This area includes the following areas:  Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Yukon.  Each of these Provinces and Territories are areas which are outlined by a geographic boundary.  The pattern here is that we are talking about how a large geographic area is related to smaller geographic areas.  

The problem is that the word Canada has additional meanings.  When I say Canada, I could be referring to the residents of Canada which is a summation of the residents of the provinces and territories; the latter being sub-groups of a larger group (i.e.; the memberOf Meronymy).

Now, Lets Analize what your are saying here.

for the purpose of the discussion I defined the fridge object that is located in Paolo's house as a location not as a container.  Similar to "Lawrence is at Oasis 12 in the Sahara".    If the object "Oasis 12" is unique in the worldview of the participants in the conversation then they would not need to clarify Lawrence's position by what I now understand to be a Location_Of meronymy... "Oasis 12 in the Sahara".
I am still not sure of this though as it is looking at an instance level rather than an abstraction level. But until I get it sorted I'll have to resort asking you about instance models.

Let's keep in mind, we are discussing Has-A associations, not Where-Is-It associations.  A Where-Is-It association is not a meronymy.  A thing that is somewhere is not really a part of the place where it is...It is just there.

Similar to "Lawrence is at Oasis 12 in the Sahara".

Lets break this down...

• Sahara is an area of land.
  
• Oasis 12 is a unique name of an area of land.
  
• Oasis 12 is spatially located within the Sahara.
  
• Both Sahara and Oasis 12 are areas of land.
  
• Sahara and Oasis 12 share a meronymic relationship of the stereotype <<locationOf>>
  
  Now...
  
• Lawrence is a person, not an area of land.
  
• Lawrence and the locations Sahara and Oasis 12 do share a relationship, but is is a <<whereIsIt>> relationship and is thus, not a meronymic relationship.
  
• It makes sense to say Sahara Has-A Oasis 12, it does not make sense to say Sahara Has-A Lawrence ( at least in terms of spatiality).
  
  

  If the object "Oasis 12" is unique in the worldview of the participants in the conversation then they would not need to clarify Lawrence's position by what I now understand to be a Location_Of meronymy... "Oasis 12 in the Sahara".  

  
  Oasis 12 in the Sahara is indeed a meronymy.
  Lawrence is in the Sahara is a statement of less precision than Lawrence is at Oasis 12.  Lawrence being at either location is just an association, not  a meronymy.
  
  Does this help? :-/