Relativity of Frameworks
From Zanecorpwiki
- Definition a: In the full sense, a framework is the thing that you work within.
- Definition a-alt: The framework is the context in which we act.
- Axiom a: That framework as context exists in three dimensions: ontological, realization, and conception.
- The ontological dimension manifests as specification. It defines what the framework is and is not.
- Realization makes the framework real. I.e., implementation, which we also loosely call the technical.
- Conception is the ineffable metaphor through which we relate to the framework.
- It is possible to describe a framework independently in each of the three spaces, even as such a description contains all that is necessary to understand the framework in the other. That is to say, each embodies the others.
- Corrolary a (of Def.a and Def.a-alt) Framework a concept that's entirely dependent on point of view. This is most clear when we think in terms of "framework as context."
- Definition b: Product is the thing we construct within a framework.
- Axiom b: All products exist within a framework.
- Corrolary b (of Axiom b): Frameworks are justified by their products.
The central point is that "framework" is a term which can be only understood relative to the observer. In software, a web developer may use Rails as a framework, but for the Rails developer, Rails is the product and Ruby is the framework.
Note that there is no assumption about the relation of frameworks to one another. To continue with the previous example, a Rails developer uses Ruby directly while also using Rails.[notes 1]
Notes
- ↑ For a non software example, a driver works within the framework of a car. Steel, as both science, technique, and product is part of the framework of the car. The driver interacts with "car" as holistic framework even while still able to engage directly with the physical material of the car.
