>I need to describe a system with artifacts that
> can be read and understood by intelligent agents to understand.....
[...] (01)
Andrea
the obvious answer would be to capture what you say below by
describing individual subsystems, however the challenge is to describe
emergent properties, that i properties which come into existence only
when the system is modelled as a whole. (02)
I suppose ontological alignment is a possible approach
(Have different ontologies for each system/subsystem) and then
synchronize them, but that obviously easier said than done (03)
another problem is to monitor and capture the real time changes that
take place, so the lack of stability of range of states of each
different system may add to the complexity, (04)
> - 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
> ==================== ;-)
> Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Engineering Management & Systems Engineering
> Old Dominion University
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (05)
--
Paola Di Maio
********************************** (06)
Forthcoming (07)
i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-semantics.tugraz.at (08)
SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/RegistrationSEMAPRO09.html (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|