We are driving into philosophical questions again (which are fun, but not the focus of what I try to get help on).
I am actually much easier to satisfy. I do not need another description of the whole discipline of SE, I need to describe a system with artifacts that can be read and understood by intelligent agents
- what the system provides (interfaces/service access)
- what the systems consumes (inputs)
- what the system produces (outputs)
- what the system requires (resources/can be modeled as inputs)
- what the systems controls (controls/can be modeled as inputs)
- what the constraints for the inputs/outputs etc. (ICOMs for the IDEF fans) are
- what processes need to be synchronized (synchronization points)
- what processes need to be orchestrated (a little bit more work than synchronization)
- what constraints exist for services and processes
Based on this, I want to check to systems if they can be composed. Normally, a set of challenges needs to be solved, even with a good description of the system using mathematical models and axioms (and there is the
bad word again: logic):
- there will be differences in resolution (properties of concepts differ in resolution, multi-resolution problem)
- there will be differences in scope (other concepts are used to describe the same thing, multi-scope problem)
- there will be differences in structure (same properties are used to define different concepts, multi-structure problem)
... and then all of the above.
If we look at the life cycle, stages and phases can be supported by different systems ... and so forth.
Nonetheless, if the system designers use a standardized set of ontological means, we have at least a common syntax (and I agree that this does not mean we have a common understanding of terms as well), but we will
be one big step further.
What I am dreaming about is a lambda-calculus for systems ... long way to go.
All the best
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
Engineering Management & Systems Engineering
Old Dominion University