• From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• To: Keith Hassen <keith.hassen@g...>
• Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:39:35 -0600

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Keith Hassen <keith.hassen@g...> wrote:
> Since 0.02 is being thrown around ... I'll give it a stab ...
>
> Wouldn't an abstract description be a definition that permits you to perform
> *deduction* in order to derive further "solutions"?  In contrast, a generic
> description is simply a way to describe a certain class of items without an
> inherent mechanism to logically introduce new elements into that class? (ie.
> no deduction can be formed based on the generic description)
>

Forgot to reply to all (sigh).  At first this seems useful, and so far
it get's my vote. However, upon pondering this a bit more I've now got
to ask; is the class of "animals" an abstraction or a generalization?

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@U...>

• References:
  • RE: RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@U...>
  • Re: RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • RE: RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@U...>
  • Re: RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: Keith Hassen <keith.hassen@g...>