In your line that says: "situation -> action -> consequences -> new situation"
the consequences and new situation are really the same thing so
"situation -> action -> consequences = new situation"
might have been more accurate.
And your diagram of situations, actions and consequences could have used some action sequences
that converged on the same consequence because the situation to action is a one to many relationship, the action to consequence relationship is a one to many as you have on your diagram but also the consequence back to the action is a one to many relationship as well.
You`re right about the diagram; I omitted some details..
As for the "consequences" and the "situation", I mean "consequences" reflect only changes in the situation, not a new situation as a whole, so we need to "apply" consequences to the previous situation (state) to get a new one. So "consequences" data can be relatively small while "situation" data can be voluminous.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. For example, the decision "move away from danger object" may have event-consequence "danger object left the line of sight", but this event is not a part of a new situation; the changes boiled down to the fact that part of the situation "disappeared".
Hi Mykola,
Very good article. Well written and easy to read.
Two small comments:
In your line that says: "situation -> action -> consequences -> new situation"
the consequences and new situation are really the same thing so
"situation -> action -> consequences = new situation"
might have been more accurate.
And your diagram of situations, actions and consequences could have used some action sequences
that converged on the same consequence because the situation to action is a one to many relationship, the action to consequence relationship is a one to many as you have on your diagram but also the consequence back to the action is a one to many relationship as well.
Cheers, Brett
Hi Brett,
thank you for the feedback!
You`re right about the diagram; I omitted some details..
As for the "consequences" and the "situation", I mean "consequences" reflect only changes in the situation, not a new situation as a whole, so we need to "apply" consequences to the previous situation (state) to get a new one. So "consequences" data can be relatively small while "situation" data can be voluminous.
So would it be true that the consequences are a subset of the new situation?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. For example, the decision "move away from danger object" may have event-consequence "danger object left the line of sight", but this event is not a part of a new situation; the changes boiled down to the fact that part of the situation "disappeared".