Andreas, (01)
Such description is of interest to me and I wold like to add that it
would be great if one could keep it small as a Micro Ontology and
Theories (MOT). So it can be used as a reasonable small foundation that
could be infused as a base by interested organisations i.e. used for
*harmonisation* purposes. Adding a few directions on how the MOT could
be extended (create dialects, restrict or ...) could facilitate
organised reuse. The SBVR approach of allowing (representing and
expressing) different speech communities with terminological
dictionaries could lower terminological barriers to
*resuse*. (02)
thanks
/anders w. tell (03)
Tolk, Andreas wrote:
> 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
> to understand
> - 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|