Dear Nicola, (01)
I sympathise with the "socio-technical systems" proposal, and note that it
finds favour with others. My concern with it would be that it appears to
exclude purely technical systems (so a computer system together with its
users is in, but the computer itself is out) or purely social systems. Is
that your intention? (02)
My intention is only to exclude systems which we do not have the expertise
to talk about them with confidence, and not to over generalise where that is
not warranted and claim for systems in general what is only true for a
subset of systems. (03)
I would accept that socio-technical systems are almost always complex, but
not that a system has to be socio-technical to be complex. (04)
Regards (05)
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/ (06)
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. (07)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nicola Guarino
> Sent: 19 January 2012 17:23
> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> Subject: [ontology-summit] Large-scale engineered systems vs. large-scale
> sociotechnical systems
>
> Folks,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> "Large-scale socio-technical systems"
>
> 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.
>
>
> Just a suggestion, I leave the track chairs to continue the discussion.
>
> Talking to you in few minutes,
>
> Nicola
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2012, at 16:48, Matthew West wrote:
>
> > 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/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (09)
|