论文标题
改变概念建模和系统重新配置
Change in Conceptual Modeling and Systems Reconfiguration
论文作者
论文摘要
在本文中，我们探讨了系统和软件工程的变化概念，并强调了其哲学阐明。通常，据称变化在系统中是如此普遍，以至于它几乎打败了描述和分析。在本文中，我们使用称为Thinging Machine（TM）的概念建模技术分析了变化，该技术反映了创建，处理，释放，转移和接收事物的动作的变化。我们以系统的重新配置为使用业务流程建模符号（BPMN）设计的业务产品处理的示例来说明TM建模的变化。然后，我们分析变化的概念，并比较其在哲学上的各种定义。具体来说，我们研究了Zeno的悖论，其中涉及如何在移动事物中同时考虑变化和连续性。问题在于，我们不能断言箭头是从弓箭拍摄时实际移动的，因为箭头需要在每个时间点处在某个位置，从定义上讲，箭头根本不包含任何持续时间。在对这个问题的分析中，我们将箭头轨迹转换为称为Thimacs的太空单元。在TM通用动作中，确定了两种类型的更改：状态和进步（过程）变化。因此，当箭头流到代表轨迹空间单元的TM机器时，它被拒绝，从而使其反弹到外部。也就是说，箭头被转移，到达并转移回去；因此，箭头永远不会在轨迹中被接受为Thimac。这种分析的结果似乎引入了逻辑上的解释，说明Zeno的谜题中讨论的运动概念。
In this paper, we explore the notion of change in systems and software engineering, emphasizing its philosophical elucidation. Generally, it has been claimed that change is so pervasive in systems that it almost defeats description and analysis. In this article, we analyze change using the conceptual modeling technique called a thinging machine (TM), which reflects change in terms of the actions of creating, processing, releasing, transferring, and receiving things. We illustrated change in TM modeling with an example of a system s reconfiguration of business product handling designed using business process modeling notation (BPMN). Then we analyze the notion of change and compare its various definitions in philosophy. Specifically, we examine Zeno s paradox that involves how to account for change and continuity together in moving things. The problem is that we cannot assert that an arrow is actually moving when it has been shot from a bow because the arrow needs to be at a certain place at each point in time, which by definition cannot contain any duration at all. In our analysis of this problem, we convert the arrow trajectory into space units called thimacs. In the TM generic actions, two types of change are identified: state and progression (PROCESS) changes. Therefore, when an arrow flows to a TM machine that represents a trajectory space unit, it is rejected, causing it to bounce away to the outside. That is, the arrow is transferred, arrives, and is transferred back; therefore, the arrow is never accepted into a thimac in the trajectory at any moment. The result of such analysis seems to introduce a logical explanation for the notion of movement discussed in Zeno s puzzles.
