Relations between objects as a cause of jitter ​

One of the main reasons for the emergence of ontological flicker is the pronounced violation of relationships between objects in the language. Objects are connected to each other by relationships according to their types (meta-meta-model level) and how the meta-model is structured. If any of this is violated, the object appears "out of place" and feels uncomfortable.

For example, you know that one object of the "physical object" type can be a true part of another object of the "physical object" type, but cannot be a true part of an object of the "class" type, because classes, according to our top-level ontology, enter into other hierarchical relationships — for example, they have instances.

Types of relationships that have already been mentioned:

Hierarchies

• Part - Whole (is a true part of - includes)
• Class - Class instance (is an instance of a class - is a generalization for similar objects/includes as a class)
• Superclass - Subclass (is a subclass - is a superclass)

Language and meta-language, representation, interpretation

"It is a metalanguage in relation to X," and the more general "is described in";

"it is an instruction for interpreting X, where X is of the type 'description'".

For example: "this is documentation for code X", or "this document describes programming language Z", or "you can see instructions on how to read this book at the beginning of the book".

"reads" or "interprets," "converts to format X," which implies specifying a known format.

For example: "converts to csv".

Agent and Role

"Agent plays a role".

For example: "Vasya is a programmer [in project] X".

And a more general relationship of occupying a functional place in the system:

Function and the object that performs it

"Object performs the function".

For example: "This stone has a pounding function".

Epistemic relationships

"To believe in" and "to assume that". This is about epistemic status (can only apply to the agent).

For example:

"I believe the sky is blue".

"I assume the sky is blue".

These are relationships of the agent with the belief "sky is blue".

Preference relationships

"I would like it to be" and "it must be". This is about preferences (can be applied to the agent and to the role).

For example:

"I would like the sky to be blue".

"I must have the sky be blue".

These are relationships of the agent with the preference for the sky.

Arbitrary relationships

In tuples, you were suggested to fix arbitrary relationships on types that you will designate as suitable for these relationships:

Expressed by comparison.

For example: "this year's profit is greater [than last year's]".

Expressed by action.

For example: "this year's profit has increased".