Skip to content
Create an account for full access.

Differences between the concern and the viewpoint

The method of description (viewpoint) reflects an important characteristic/concern, and the description (view) answers questions about the meaning of the target characteristic, satisfying the interest in it. For example, a legend of a fauna map::the method of description reflects the distribution of fauna on a specific territory::concern, and the map::description answers questions about the presence or absence of fauna in different places::the value of the target characteristic/concern.

However, the concern/subject of interest, the method of description/viewpoint, and the description/view can confuse (that is, confuse the distribution of fauna as a characteristic of some eco-system/territory::concern, the legend of the fauna map::viewpoint and the map of fauna::view). Of course, all these are closely related concepts, but they draw attention to different objects, so all of them are needed to discuss nuances: you need to find objects of all mentioned types in the project: concerns, viewpoints, views.

If the subject of concern/important characteristic is the color of the system, and my preference/interest is bright color, I will be dissatisfied if the color is not bright. I choose the method of describing the color (reflecting the important characteristic of interest using the method of description), including the ability to describe the values of color saturation - this will allow me to predict the brightness of the color in my area of interest, experience the obtained brightness of the colored system, formulate preferences for the brightness of the color, negotiate with other project roles regarding the saturation of the color. Another project role - an engineer who must paint the system. And he may be concerned that the paint is cheap (satisfying the interest of another project role - the financial manager), and the brightness of this paint will not bother him. But cheap paint is not bright. If I document the color I need, describing it using standard characteristics such as colorfulness, chroma, saturation, plus taking into account external lighting (brightness), we can at least negotiate acceptable color saturation characteristics, and as a result of the negotiations, the engineer can choose inexpensive but bright enough paint to suit my role preference for bright color. My role preference for a bright color::(value of an important characteristic) will be implemented.

Choosing a method of description can be challenging: describing colorfulness and color saturation can be done in different ways. In the end, we choose a method of description/viewpoint, and within this chosen method of description, we discuss my desires/preferences to have a brighter color - my intention here is either to make the paint more expensive or even add additional illumination (which is more expensive, but I will look for allies who would like this option to implement their own preferences).

If we do not come to an agreement, then I::the actor continue to implement my role preference to have a brighter color. To do this, I::the agent switch to a mode of inventiveness and create some intrigue (for example, a call to a high-ranking manager::an authorized agent to the actor performing the role of an engineer, and from the same manager, a call to the performer in the role of a financial specialist). In the next negotiations, they both give in, and the system documentation includes a description of the color of the system as bright enough for me. To describe this brightness, we use the agreed method of describing the color.

Next, I make sure that this description is implemented by checking the color saturation characteristics of the purchased paint. Everything is fine, my preference is satisfied - against the specified color saturation in the project, the engineer and the financial specialist do not object. The system in terms of color will be successful (unless it turns out that there is another role that, on the contrary, seeks a paler color and is more inventive in implementing their intentions).

It should be reminded that a description consists of models. The method of description consists of meta-models (a map and a legend of the map - a model of the territory and a meta-model of the territory, a meta-model describes the model, indicating what types of objects and relationships can appear in the model). Meta-models make it possible to create a model predicting the state of the object of interest/characteristic of the system. Viewpoints/methods of description are about meta-modeling. Models make it possible to evaluate the object of interest, either be satisfied with it, or move on to active actions to change the situation, check if the system truly corresponds to its descriptions, or take other actions to adjust the evaluation in implementing preferences towards "OK, success, preferences satisfied." Models are about descriptions using description methods.

The hierarchy of models, meta-models, meta-meta-models is dedicated to the transdisciplinary field of ontology, but in our course, we will only consider the specifics of modeling and meta-modeling within the framework of systems thinking - creating system descriptions, known as system modeling.