I also remember the Delft blue objects at the Lyons house. Scattered throughout the rooms were innumerable blue and white clogs and Dutch kids kissing. On the wall, were copper plates embossed with scenes of people eating or shoeing horses next to ceramic tiles set in curly iron frames. I liked to sit in front of the fake fireplace and play with the bellows that hung next to it. The lounge room had so many fakes: the fire, bricks, paintings, Delft blue. But it didn’t matter to my grandparents. They had reconstructed a pretty convincing Dutch interior. They had remade their homeland domestic space to raise their children in. They were proud to be Australian and Dutch and expressed this through their objects and their home decoration. Now, years on, I have a few of their objects, including photos of Oma and Opa and their young family from optimistic times—and I am trying to understand my heritage through these objects. They spent their life making things so they could construct a Dutch–Australian home and identity. Now I am trying to reconstruct some of these elements to put into my work and to acknowledge their contribution to my own narrative of belonging. At the same time, I want to take into account my mother’s Finnish heritage and my Chinese stepfather’s impact on my world ... but that’s another story.
The above piece of code uses a loop, in which the object variable cellY refers to each cell member of the collection rangeX.Cells in turn. It assigns the value 1 to A1, 2 to A2, 3 to A3, 4 to B1 etc and to 9 to C3. In this case, we could simply have written rangeX instead of rangeX.Cells, but see what happens if you change it to For Each cellY In rangeX.Rows. Now RangeX represents the same range of cells in each case, but rangeX.Cells and rangeX.Rows represent two different collections of objects. In the first case, the members are individual cells, but in the second case the members are ranges representing rows of cells, with each row being itself a collection with its own members (the individual cells).
One of the factors which determines the implementation techniques used within an object oriented programming language ( oopl ) is whether or not it aims to support large volumes of data and large collections of objects, and in particular, whether or not it aims to support dbms functions other than just storage and retrieval. If an oopl is to support the implementation of a dbms , or object level access to a database, then it must support access to volumes of objects in excess of the size of virtual memory, and it must eciently handle the low locality of reference typical of these systems. In addition, it must manage collections of objects which can be queried, necessitating the maintenance of indices when objects are updated, and the acquisition of intent locks [1, 2] when objects are accessed. Since Amadeus aims to support a wide range of oopl s, it must support such languages. The following are some of the ways in which the implementation of such languages dier from persistent oopl s which access smaller, non-database, persistent stores:
The recent standard for Cascading Style Sheets for HTML documents [LB97] al- lows the presentation of many document features to be controlled by visual param- eters such as font, size and colour. WWW links in HTML documents are normally tightly bound to previously marked-up anchors, and so a style-sheet' s only option for parametrising link presentation is to change the typographic attributes of the (fixed) anchor. By contrast, the linking proxy has complete freedom to choose how to elab- orate a link by binding it to any suitable anchor site in the document or inventing a new piece of content to act as an anchor (in the form of a distinguishing marker or a more general annotation). This freedom is balanced against the fixed layout of a PDF document which makes it difficult to fit extra visual objects within the body text. The options which apply to PDF documents are to have the links appear as boxes around the linked text (Acrobat default), footnote-style asterisks or pseudo citations. Different colours may be used to distinguish the various types of links.
As Campbell, Dunne and Ennis (2017) point out, and as we have intimated above, Harman remains a philosopher and avowedly so. As such his theorisation essentially advocates, and can only advocate, an aesthetic approach to the revelation of necessarily withdrawn and withdrawing objects of the world. Thus he can offer no definitive ‘method’ to the organisational and social sciences and this is why the latter pages of Immaterialism are taken up by a series of what must remain ‘provisional rules of method’ [2016a: 114 et passim]. Such a stance towards aspects of our world works tolerably well when directed to a foundational text such as the Comedy, which has a relatively constrainable context and a central concern with love. But it is less successful when confronting the messier text of the Dutch East India Company with its endlessly ramifying contexts. For here it is forced to address and at least partially answer, however implicitly, questions such as the ways in which Coen, its ‘grim… Governor-General’ [2016a: 39] can and does represent the company and its sponsor state; the stability of the referent of the term ‘the Dutch’ in an era of different borders than our own; and the relationship between the rapacious colonization of Indonesia and the achievements of the Golden Age in Holland. It may simply be that there is more to appreciate, more to which one can warmly attach, in an epic poem of love than in a tragic account of imperial adventure. Superficially this might suggest that object-oriented ontology is unlikely to be a definitive guide to better appreciation and understanding of the objects of our world, which is undoubtedly the case. But the problem here is not so much with object-oriented ontology’s lack of capacity to deliver definitive answers. It resides rather more in the persisting desire for definitiveness in the face of objects whose nature is to inherently resist complete explication.
The blocks were intended to reference the original use of the cut nail in construction. More importantly, I wanted these to have a sense of antiquity and to seem as though they were 25 found objects. However, obtaining the timbers large enough to make a 12 by 12 cube proved to be quite difficult and cost prohibitive. In an attempt to recreate the feeling of a solid block I experimented with plywood, but it clearly read as a hollow cube and was eliminated as a solution. Laminated boards came closer in recreating the look I wanted, but the process added unnecessary visual confusion with grain pattern and tonal variations with each board. I finally decided on 14/4 cherry to anchor each cast iron nail. Each of the five sections were cut from the same board and all of the five boards were from the same tree. Grain pattern and tone can vary greatly between each individual tree and I wanted this to be a unifying element. Maintaining the grain pattern and color of the wood from each nail in the series to the next added the sense that they were a linked series of multiples.
The purpose of this policy is to identify how the collections of the Museum of Science & History (MOSH) will be managed. The policy is intended to serve as a guide to the development, management and care of the collections to achieve the overall mission of the Museum. This policy will identify the duties and responsibilities of the Curatorial staff, the Museum staff in general, and the Museum’s governing body. Review of the Collection Management Policy is necessary to maintain its validity and usefulness as a guide for the Museum staff and Board of Trustees. The Curator will identify when a formal Collection Management Policy review and revision is warranted - usually every three to five years. Working with the appropriate staff, trustees, and outside experts as needed, the Curator will submit proposed revisions to the Executive Director for presentation to the Board of Trustees for final approval.
This relates to the structure of storage resources, and ways to access them. Metadata could relate to a hierarchical scheme for locating storage resources (such as LDAP), properties of resources that are ex- ternally visible, permissions and access rights, and in- formation about the stored content. Developing a consensus on the desired representation for relation- ships is also important in the context of Grids, al- though this is not likely to be achieved in the short term. Relationships can have multiple types, includ- ing semantic/functional, spatial/structural, tempo- ral/procedural. These relationships can be used to pro- vide semantic operability between different databases, support type conversion between different object ori- ented systems, and manage ownership of distributed data objects. The ISO 13250 Topic Maps standard (defined below) is one candidate for managing relation- ships between data sources.
"artifact" and "realia" are often used to denote three-dimensional objects in archival collections. Richard-Pearce Moses, in his Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology, defines "artifact" as "a man-made, physical object." He notes, "Even though documents and other two-dimensional materials are artifacts because of their physical nature, 'artifact' is often used to distinguish three-dimensional materials from two-dimensional materials." Pearce-Moses also distinguishes between man-made objects (artifacts) and naturally occurring objects (specimens): "Artifact is often used to distinguish man-made items from natural specimens." He defines "specimen" as "an item of natural origin," noting that the term "is often used to distinguish biological, botanical, and geological materials from man-made artifacts." As this paper makes no differentiation between man- made and naturally occurring items, Pearce-Moses' definition of "object" seems more appropriate for the purposes of this paper: "An item that is tangible, especially one with significant depth relative to its height and width; an artifact or specimen." The term "realia," in Pearce-Moses' definition, is synonymous with "object;" he defines it simply as "A three-dimensional object." His definition of "object" goes on to note, "Object
which reflect various performance problems. In the present situation, observing the total count of objects in the cache (Section 3.1) provides a rapid overview. It is hoped that with some experience the developer will be able to recognise different stages in the application in order to identify the areas requiring more detailed investigation. Another technique which is tenable for large amounts of data is a set of histograms displaying statistics of various
The alternative package characterises quanta as non-individuals, where this is understood in terms of a lack of identity. The appropriate formal framework is then that of quasi-set theory, which provides a semantics for ‘opaque’ predicates as indicated above. There are still some interesting questions to be addressed here, such as how it is that one can refer to objects for which one cannot even say that identity holds. On this point we take our lead from Barcan Marcus who, in discussion with Kripke and Quine, distinguished ‘object-reference’ from ‘thing-reference’, where the former is given in terms of quantification, and the latter is bound up with identity (Barcan Marcus 1993, p. 25). We may thus ‘refer’ 7 to objects for which identity cannot be said to hold, although how we do this in the quantum context is again an issue which requires further discussion (see French and Krause forthcoming).
Bolzano was often accused of confounding set-theoretical and mereological notions. The Kneales (1962, 364) maintained: “Bolzano seems to be in danger of confusing a whole of parts with a set of members.” George (1983, 256) has followed suit: “In Bolzano, set-theoretical and mereological notions tend to run together.” While Berg (1992, 37) argues that there are set- theoretical as well as mereological collections in Bolzano, and Krause (2004, chap. II.7.1) thinks that only collections of sub- stances are mereological entities, Krickel (1995), Siebel (1996, chap. 1.6) and Behboud (1997) promote a uniform mereolog- ical interpretation. Simons (1997), on the other hand, argues that Bolzano’s theory of collections is neither a set theory nor a mereology, but a general theory covering all kinds of plenties (compare Rusnock 2013, 155). Note, however, that Simons (1997, 105) has in mind a mereology where “a mereological sum is not always to be had, e.g., if some of the objects are concrete and others are abstract, or if they are widely separated in space or time or of widely differing category”. Simons thus operates with the restricted notion of an integral whole.
Осим назива “објекти учења“, у литератури се могу наћи и синоними као што су: образовни објекти (educational objects), објекти садржаја (content objects - Sharable Content Object - SCO), компоненте тренинга (training components), медија објекти (media object), објекти предавања (lecture object), објекти знања (knowledge object), образовне софтверске компоненте (educational software components), јединице курса (courseware unit), јединице учења (learning unit), атоми учења (learning atoms), атомске јединице информације (tomic information units), означене јединице (assignable units), дељиви објекти (sharable content objects) и објекти е-учења (e-learning objects) - ЕЛО.