What may constitute a Theory of Modelling? Let me enlighten my position a bit, with the help of last week’s Rhino posting:
What does Software Modelling – a Rhino’s Perspectice tell us? It is about Modelling, some of its underlying principles and how they relate to practical experiences. To me things like this make nice starting points for thinking and talking about principles like blind spots or redundancy in modelling. However, is this already enough to constitute a Theory of Modelling?
I would argue that the Rhino example is not (part of) a Modelling Theory, solely because it lacks rigour and relevance:
Rigour: When we inspect e.g. the blind spot principle a bit closer, it soon becomes quite ambiguous. We also would like to get rid of all example-specific details. Thus a more rigorous definition would be helpful, that imho should be done on the level of formal logic as far as possible.
Relevance: Modelling is about extracting the most important bits first. Thus a Modelling Theory seen as a model of modelling must prove its relevance. Quoting some author’s experiences might be a first step, although broadening this experience base is highly necessary in order to take relevance seriously.
To me a structure of rigorous and relevant principles is necessary and sufficient to constitute a Modelling Theory. All other things, like processual, behavioural, ontological or linguistic considerations, are optional.