> > Recall that the original query from Andreas Tolk was the application of ontologies
> > in systems engineering. I pointed out that systems engineering has quite a bit to
> > do with complexity and hierarchy, part of the continuous mathematics.
>
> PatH , in reply :
> Complexity theory uses analysis, of course, but hierarchies are discrete structures.
<snip>
A systems engineering ontology that does not take performance into account is very limited in terms of the purpose of the system’s planned use.
I tend to agree.
Another way to look at the situation is that ontologies are static. They lay on a page. But designing a system must take into account states and transitions, dynamic things.
A static description may describe a dynamic behavior. If you use calculus to describe your systems, the formulae of the calculus also lay on a page. All descriptions are static in this sense. If your intended implication is that the 'static' nature of ontologies makes them unable to describe dynamical systems, then this is just plain wrong.
I suggest that the behaviors among components are better understood if model as hierarchies of commands and constraints.
What exactly do you mean by a 'command' here? Do you mean a program?