Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:21:38 +0100
Hi Maggie and LS
Hettinger wrote:
> >
> > I see that you are talking about the static ladder as one-
> > dimensional, and of course it is, I'm not stating otherwise.
>
> It puzzles me that you said that. I think I see the static "ladder" as
> more of a tree, perhaps a banyan tree that has the capability of
> dropping new roots from its branches.
The banyan tree is new to me but I think I get the picture. We
might be talking about different abstraction layers here. Let me
draw a parallel to computer science.
In object oriented lingo, there's two basic ways to view a system.
The object hierarchy shows relationships between objects, and the
class hierarchy shows relationships between classes (of objects).
The object hierarchy would map to the banyan tree, consisting of
patterns (objects) of the levels (classes), and the class
hierarchy would map to the levels. This makes the object hierarchy
a tree structure, but the class hierarchy would be one dimensional.
It would be like overlaying the four boxes in the SODV paper with
the banyan tree. The patterns of the banyan tree would be mapped
to their correct level.
(The more I think about it, the better the object oriented
analogy seems. Maybe I'll make a formal object oriented analysis
of Static Quality. The straight inheritance hierarchy between the
levels would capture the inter level dependency quite beautifully.
Anybody have any comments?)
Anyway, does this make any sense to you? What puzzles you might
be that I'm talking about the *levels* as being one dimensional,
and you're talking about *patterns* as being tree structured.
Magnus
--
"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
N. Peart - Rush
--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:55 CEST