MB follows the FCT template and begins with homework review.
Mike Presents recent reaffirmation of FIBO Pattern Decision.
Mike presents Use cases.
Pete Rivett: Which of these classes are disjoint? MB can’t hear Pete or anyone else until very late in the discussion.
Maxwell Gillmore: Would it be feasible to talk in terms of simple or homogeneous things vs heterogeneous or compound things - maybe composite is better than compound. MB says yes and worth pursuing.
Igor Ikonnikov: "Continuant" corresponds to "Core Referential Entities", while "Occurrent" correspond to "Facts". Either of those could be "simple" or "composite". I believe it's a different dimensionality.
Maxwell Gillmore: My argument in the financial domain is that some concepts are composite e.g. a loan is typically a composite of commitments whereas a payment is more homogeneous.
Maxwell Gillmore: Can I suggest that, as a matter of process, that the distinction between continuant and perdurant that we retain the concept at a conceptual level but translate it into concepts that are less abstract
Igor Ikonnikov: "a loan is typically a composite of commitments whereas a payment is more homogeneous" - each commitment would still be of "endurant" type, different from "payment", which is of perdurant type. Woudl it not?
Max: Can we reinterpret terms such as contiuent and endurant and perdurant and into words that people can understand? From time to time translate these words into rules that make clear what we mean. What is a customer for example. We should define rules so that when a person raises a question why, we can ref the rule, not simply explain.