So far, people spoke and wrote about TRIZ in natural languages: Russian, English, French, German, etc. Dubois Sebastien, Lutz Philippe, and Rousselot Francois decided to speak of it in Tarabarish (sorry, in object-oriented language).
Should they have done otherwise, they would have been caught by the arm right away. But in Tarabarish, their paper  passed a rigid selection process by the Program Committee of the European TRIZ Conference and was accepted.
To appreciate the ingenuity of their plan, it is not enough to say that what they wrote about TRIZ in the English portion of their paper is neither interesting nor correct. This is obvious to any person who understands both English and TRIZ (as I believe the members of the Committee do). But what will definitely surprise the Committee is that what the above authors wrote in the Tarabarish portion of the paper is neither interesting nor correct either. Moreover, the Tarabarish they spoke was broken one. That is why the entire exercise in the object-orientation of TRIZ turned out to be meaningless.
For example, to write p(v1, t1, l1).f1 one has to assume that function f1 is a member of object "parameter p". Can function be a member of parameter rather than vise versa ? Is it not a nonsense ? Moreover, where is definition of the object "parameter" ? Is it absent on purpose to hide the nonsense of function being a member of parameter ?
What is the meaning of "the equation:"
(air + lead + part1 + part2 + user + point + handle + resistance + connector + cable) =
length_of_handle(short).precision_of_welding + length_of_handle(long).overheat_of_handle ?
Is it not the same as:
Bru-bra-bha = abra-cadabra ?
Where is definition of part1 and part2 ? What are they ? What does this sum mean ? And why is the sum of objects equal to precision of welding + overheat of handle ? If it is not a nonsense then what is it ?
Moreover, to write "legnth_of_handle(short).precision_of_welding" one has to assume that "precision_of_welding" is a member of object "length_of_handle". Is it not a nonsense too ?
Etc., etc., etc.
Did Dubois, Lutz, and Rousselot really intend to contribute something to TRIZ or just win fame of being the best TRIZniks amongst object-oriented designers and the best object-oriented designers amongst TRIZniks ? If the former, then they failed. If the latter, then they got it. However, this is a doubtful achievement.
It is well known that the best X amongst Y and the best Y amongst X are very often poor both at X and Y. Dubois Sebastien, Lutz Philippe, and Rousselot Francois turned out to not be exceptions of this rule.
R E F E R E N C E S:
1. Dubois Sebastien, Lutz Philippe, and Rousselot Francois, "Proposal of object-oriented model of the physical contradiction to facilitate the problem-framing phase in design", The January 2004 issue of the TRIZ-journal.