|
On Sunday,
February 01, 2009 11:39 AM, Hovard Mason wrote:
A multi-million
dollar standardisation effort on the information requirements for Systems
Engineering is approaching completion, offering a standard set of data
definitions and relationships to facilitate information exchange between
dissimilar Systems Engineering tools. The capabilities have already been
verified in pilot implementations - NASA and the former European SEDRES project,
and the work has been done in conjunction with INCOSE.
I suggest many on the OntologForum would appreciate having more
information on "a standard set of data definitions and relationships ...".
"So there is no need to reinvent an ontology for this problem space from
scratch, since much of the agreement between domain experts has been
achieved."
I agree with Matthew about reviewing the models and
ontologies applied; for also wonder at the unifying modeling standard
languages/ontology employed, considering the integrating nature of the
Systems Engineering, its meaning as the art and science of making effective
systems as a causal, integrated whole, and the fundamental principles:
complexity, holism, state, emergence, behavior, boundary, interaction, function,
control, viability, and physical constraints.
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems Ltd
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:39
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological
Means for Systems Engineering
Sorry if I was not clear. A multi-million dollar standardisation
effort on the information requirements for Systems Engineering is
approaching completion, offering a standard set of data definitions and
relationships to facilitate information exchange between dissimilar Systems
Engineering tools. The capabilities have already been verified in pilot
implementations - NASA and the former European SEDRES project, and the work
has been done in conjunction with INCOSE.
So there is no need to reinvent an ontology for this problem space from
scratch, since much of the agreement between domain experts has been
achieved.
My question is how the discipline of ontologies can be use to extend,
enrich, or facilitate the deployment and exploitation of the work by the
community which faces the real business challenge of exchanging and sharing
information across a heterogeneous set of tools. A further challenge is
to be able to preserve that information in a usable form throughout the
life of the product to which it applies - often measured in decades.
Howard Mason
BAE Systems Corporate IT Office
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:38 PM, Howard Mason wrote:
As Chair of the ISO committee responsible fo Industrial Data, and with
a job remit that includes information standards for BAE Systems worldwide, I
would be most interested ot learn what the ontology community can do to
build on many millions of dollars of existing investment, and to enhance the
use and exploitation of the knowledge that has already been agreed.
Howard,
kindly enlighen what is here the point. Some multi-million investment
has been done to some engineering projects , and now you are in need of
some standardization model. Or, the multi-million investment is to be
allocated for common industrial data and information standards
[for complex engineering systems and processes], and you are in need of
integrated ontological schema. Thanks.
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:38
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Ontological Means for Systems Engineering
I think it is worth noting that there is already a considerable body
of standards for systems engineering in ISO and INCOSE, with information
models developed over the years that are already integrated with product
structure and performance standards - ISO 15288 and the new STEP Systems
Engineering ISO 10303-233 standard come to mind.
As Chair of the ISO committee responsible fo Industrial Data, and
with a job remit that includes information standards for BAE Systems
worldwide, I would be most interested ot learn what the ontology community
can do to build on many millions of dollars of existing investment, and to
enhance the use and exploitation of the knowledge that has already been
agreed.
I believe this is a fundamental example of the challenge that is
faced in bringing our communities together.
Sent from home email as the moderator objects to our company standard
footer
Howard Mason
Chair, ISO TC 184/ SC 4
Corporate IT Office, BAE Systems
090123
Andreas Tolk wrote:
[…]
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right on,
Professor,
Prof.
Emeritus Warfield tells us to think of a system in terms of
Context, Content, and Structure (to which I add
Behavior).
Prof.
Emeritus Wymore tells us the think about the relationships between
Context and Content in terms of Input/Output, Performance, Techology,
Cost, Test and Tradeoff Gradient
Miles Burke
tells us the types of Content are People, Places, Things and
Activities.
We notice
that all 'definitions' of systems are in the present tense which means,
to those paying attention, that a system exists only while responding to
a stimulus, otherwise all you have is a configuration of
assets.
Warfield
tells us to think in terms of Problematic Situation, underlying Problem
System and Problem Suppression System. The problem suppression system is
what you want to create.
Checkland
tells us to think in terms of an intervention goal, an intervention
strategy and a system that achieves intervention. Jonas Salk did
that. The goal (how we will know that the problem has been
suppressed) also called Measures of Effectiveness and Standards of
Acceptance, This reflects the old rule, "start with the end in
mind."
Nothing is
hierarchy. All exists as a set of nodes, striving to respond to stimuli,
in a web of mediators.
The contribution of systems engineering
are a) languaging the project (the other 95% of the project staff who
have to make the damn thing then make it work), b) describing the
problem suppression system in its various stages of realization, and c)
converging creativity (called ECN's) to
closure.
Seeing
the stages of a system as concepual, logical and physical
doesn't work very well, especially for systems
that score high in extent, variety and ambiguity
(often mis-labeled CAS for Complex, Adaptive Systems). Wymore
suggests Functional, Implementable, Buildable,
Testable.
From the I/O relaitonship one can nominate
artifacts that the system must produce. Then the question becomes Can
such artifacts happen? An artifact is a system so the question becomes
what People, Places, Things, Activities and TIME will suffice
to create said artifact.
Then the question becmes, "How many, when, of
these assets will support all I/O demands?"
Now you are ready to put intelligence into your
agents. There will be three kinds. One works on adjusting the
gradients in the system model, a second works on adapting the pattern of
relationships among system content. A third works on co-evoling
system content consistent with context and internal assets.
All three must honor not only conservation of
mass, momentum and energy from the thermodynamics axis but also
equivalent triple constrants from each of informatics, teleonomics,
economics and ecologics constraints.
The final result, an emulatable model of the
system, is an ontoloty. Not the current kind which are taxonomies
cluttered with first order spaghetti code, but real ontologies.
Does this mean that the foregoing is the start
of a whole systems realization ontology?
Onward,
Jack Ring
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
|