Folks, (01)
the term "engineered systems" coming from the initial discussions was
indeed intended to convey an explicit focus on systems designed for a purpose,
resulting from an an engineering process, as Matthew clarifies below. This
track was born in parallel with track 1, which is its natural complement,
focusing on the engineering process. (02)
Of course, there are other kinds of big, complex systems which (as a
whole) are not engineered, while they may contain or not some (relevant) parts
which are engineered. An ecological system, at least at a first approximation,
seems to be a purely natural system, while an urban system is clearly a system
which contains engineered parts, although as a whole is not an engineered
system. (03)
In the big complex systems that we are facing nowadays, I think that
the engineered dimension is too relevant to be not explicitly acknowledged,
although we have also to look beyond the engineered system itself, to include
in particular the social and the environmental context. That's why, instead of
dropping "engineered" from the title, I suggest to modify the modify it a
little bit: (04)
"Large-scale socio-technical systems" (05)
Under this notion we can include both the engineered (technical) systems
properly, and the larger social context they are embeeded in. Purely natural
systems remain out of focus, but I think this is good in order to avoid
broadening too much our analysis. (06)
Just a suggestion, I leave the track chairs to continue the discussion. (07)
Talking to you in few minutes, (08)
Nicola (09)
On 19 Jan 2012, at 16:48, Matthew West wrote: (010)
> Dear John,
>
>> I realize that a large number of messages have gone back and forth
>> about the word 'engineered'. But would anybody who reads the
>> announcement of the ontology summit need to know any of that?
>>
>>> Track 2 will focus on the ontology of large-scale engineered systems.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be simpler just to drop the word 'engineered'?
>
> Not really my choice of words. The titles were settled before I offered to
> be a champion. However, there is a distinction between systems in general
> and engineered systems. Engineered systems are those that are the result of
> some systems engineering process, whereas there are certainly systems that
> arise naturally, and were not engineered for a purpose - at least not by
> humans.
>
> If there was a strong interest expressed in systems that are wider than
> engineered systems, I would be happy to broaden the track to accommodate
> them. On the other hand, engineered systems are generally within my
> competence, whereas a broader view of systems would not be, and I'd rather
> not be drawing conclusions about systems in general when they really only
> applied to engineered systems.
>
> So I suggest we await an interest and expertise in non-engineered systems
> before making changes.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontology-summit-org-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-
>> org-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>> Sent: 19 January 2012 13:42
>> To: ontology-summit-org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit-org] Track Content pages
>>
>> Dear Matthew,
>>
>> I realize that a large number of messages have gone back and forth
>> about the word 'engineered'. But would anybody who reads the
>> announcement of the ontology summit need to know any of that?
>>
>>> Track 2 will focus on the ontology of large-scale engineered systems.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be simpler just to drop the word 'engineered'?
>>
>> Is anything gained by that word, other than a puzzled look
>> on somebody's face who wonders what meaning, if any, that word
>> might contribute?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> To Post: mailto:ontology-summit-org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Msg Archives: http://interop.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit-org/
>> Community Files: http://interop.cim3.net/file/work/ontology-summit-
>> org/OntologySummit2012/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (012)
|