On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Debmacp wrote:
> That plus what should be processed by machines versus thought through by people
>
> Deb
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Jack Park <
jackpark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I think that there are some very powerful insights emerging in this
>> particular thread. For me, they edge ever closer to a boundary that
>> interest me greatly:
>>
>> the boundary that separates machines from organisms.
>>
>> That boundary is the same one that frequently emerges in conversations
>> that pit "reductionism" against holistic thinking.
>>
>> I don't see reductionism and holism as necessarily being so orthogonal
>> that they get pitted against each other; as I see it, both are
>> necessary, but neither is sufficient. Sure, that point alone is well
>> worth its own conversation, but let me set that aside for a moment and
>> tell a short springboard story.
>>
>> Nicholas Rashevski [1], considered the father of mathematical biology,
>> wrote a paper "Topology and life: In search of general mathematical
>> principles in biology and sociology" in 1954, which argued that for
>> all the math he invented, we still don't understand what makes
>> organisms tick. He launched the "relational biology" inquiry. He
>> sought a way to represent a "canonical organism". His student Robert
>> Rosen [2] eventually replaced Rashevski's graph and "organismic set"
>> approaches with category theory, and later wrote the book _Life
>> Itself_ which explains both the ontological and epistemological
>> grounds for his canonical organism representation, which entailed two
>> "components": metabolism and repair. Category theory showed that those
>> two entailed reproduction. What is important in this is the
>> observation that what is hard to represent are all of the necessary
>> "relationships" that exist between and among the components, and with
>> the external environment.
>>
>> I offer that story as a suggestion that special consideration needs to
>> be given to relations. I will not suggest that more or less
>> consideration be given when weighed against the components being
>> modeled; I'll just leave it as a suggestion that relations in complex
>> systems -- organismic systems -- are important. Rosen was not able to
>> make graph or set theoretic approaches solve Rashevsky's quest;
>> Rashevsky died before Rosen realized a candidate solution, one rooted
>> in category theory.
>>
>> I read it somewhere that while set theory lets you talk about members
>> of a set, category theory lets you talk about the social lives of
>> those members. I'm not smart enough to validate that, just smile.
>>
>> JackP
>>
>> Jack
>> [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Rashevsky
>> [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rosen_%28theoretical_biologist%29
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Deborah MacPherson <
debmacp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> How to fix?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Jack Ring <
jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that this thread is beginning to highlight the absence of a
>>>> general semantics (Korsybski, Peirce, Bickerton, etc.) facet of the Summit.
>>>> The importance of this facet comes to the fore as big gets BIG then BIGGER.
>>>>
>>>> General systems theory and practice are an insufficent basis. In the
>>>> traverse from a) an incorrect perception of a problem situation to z) the
>>>> self-sustaining operation of an intervention system that is exemplary in
>>>> quality, parsimony and beauty several languages will be used to express the
>>>> transformations and orchestrations of the numerous knowledge vectors as they
>>>> evolve.
>>>>
>>>> Better fix this now.
>>>> Jack
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 21, 2012, at 7:28 AM, k Goodier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Andrea,
>>>>
>>>> Your note is exactly the kind of dialog I was hoping to get started.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It brings up what I believe is an important distinction for applied
>>>> ontology. In this case to engineered systems and to engineering of systems
>>>> (meta-engineering). The distinction is between the application, the language
>>>> used to talk about the application, and the specific knowledge (ontology)
>>>> represented within the language. OWL2 is a perfect place to discuss some
>>>> issues. OWL2 is not only an ontology language, but a formal ontology
>>>> language, and has the virtue that it has good reasoners. Starting from this
>>>> about 4 years ago I started looking at and attempting to use OWL2 for
>>>> representing product requirements and product designs. This starts in a
>>>> series of papers with among others Ian Horrocks, and David Leal. It clearly
>>>> is very promising. However, I have found that it is insufficient to
>>>> represent the semantics needed for concepts such as part-whole relations.
>>>> Certainly, one can introduce binary properties and call them part
>>>> properties. But the language without extensions is unable to do a good job
>>>> of representing a lot of engineering concepts. I am sure the ontologists
>>>> would concur. So for me it is not a question of throwing OWL out, it is what
>>>> semantic concepts are needed, how to express their semantics, and extensions
>>>> to OWL are needed. Also, by the way, as an engineer I have been very much
>>>> involved with using SysML to describe large scale systems and their
>>>> interaction with the world. I view SysML as an ontology language, albeit one
>>>> without a formal semantics. I also have been very much concerned with
>>>> retrofitting SysML with a formal semantics and adding OWL class and role
>>>> constructions. All to be able to build suitable ontologies for engineered
>>>> products and more recently biomedical systems such as the human heart.
>>>>
>>>> - Henson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Westerinen, Andrea R. [mailto:
ANDREA.R.WESTERINEN@xxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:06 PM
>>>> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion;
henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: Matthew West
>>>> Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] Summit Engineering Tracks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have recently written a paragraph summarizing "why (OWL) ontologies?"
>>>> for a customer. It tries to address some of the points that Henson raises
>>>> below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here it is with the identifying text removed:
>>>>
>>>> Xxx requires the analysis, communication, comparison and [alignment]
>>>> of [concepts] within and across authoritative tiers, addressing broad
>>>> (high-level) to specific (low-level) enterprise environments. These
>>>> requirements necessitate the creation of formal, semantically
>>>> enabled models [of the concepts], and their identifying and supporting
>>>> properties, relationships and individuals. Providing both a formal
>>>> encoding and semantic richness allows normalization of the definitions
>>>> (intent) and provides the ability to aggregate, compare, and reason over the
>>>> [concepts]. These tasks and requirements are well-aligned to the goals and
>>>> capabilities of an ontology-based approach. Ontologies, defined using W3C's
>>>> OWL, can be created, stored and reasoned over using COTS tooling. In
>>>> addition, many complementary supporting ontologies can be immediately
>>>> imported, aligned and reused (such as the provenance and time/event
>>>> ontologies from W3C, an ISO-3166 country ontology at
downlode.org,
>>>> and specific domain ontologies such as Xxx). Even if existing data is not
>>>> in an ontological format, but is perhaps stored as a relational database,
>>>> there is existing tooling to convert this data to an RDF encoding. (Taking
>>>> this approach removes the need to use complex staging tables to mediate
>>>> database information.) Using an OWL ontology as the basis for the Xxx Model
>>>> allows the formalization of not only the core concepts (...) but also puts
>>>> strong focus on the relationships between these concepts and the definition
>>>> of formal-logic-based restrictions, facts/axioms, and rules. Using COTS
>>>> OWL reasoners, logical analyses of the consistency, completeness and minimal
>>>> set definitions are straightforward, along with the ability to align
>>>> concepts and infer new data based on logical expressions and if/then (Horn)
>>>> rules. Communication of a standardized, ontological, machine-understandable
>>>> format [to environment-specific] translation agents will produce
>>>> consistent, traceable and auditable definitions for specific end-point
>>>> implementations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrea Westerinen
>>>> | SAIC - CISBU | Sr Technical Expert |
westerinena@xxxxxxxx | bb
>>>>
425-281-3611
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: henson graves [mailto:
henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Fri 1/20/2012 9:00 AM
>>>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
>>>> Cc: 'Matthew West'
>>>> Subject: [ontology-summit] Summit Engineering Tracks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The track co-champions are soliciting input, participation, and
>>>> references
>>>> for the two tracks on engineering of large systems and the resulting
>>>> engineered systems.
>>>>
>>>> My interest for the engineering tracks is to establish dialog in the
>>>> Summit
>>>> not only to identify engineering problems for which ontology can offer
>>>> solutions. But to go beyond that to dialog on what ontology results and
>>>> methodology can be applied and look at use cases for its application. Many
>>>> people in the industry of developing and using engineered systems are
>>>> aware
>>>> that ontology may provide value to many of their problems and issues. But
>>>> the industry position is what ontology technology can help, how do we use
>>>> it, what are the benefits, and what will it cost. At least this has always
>>>> been the management response when I have taken proposals regarding
>>>> ontology
>>>> forward in industry.
>>>>
>>>> If this did not go to the general interest list, someone give me a pointer
>>>> to the right one.
>>>>
>>>> - Henson Graves
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ********************************************************
>>>
>>> Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
>>> Specifications and Research Cannon Design
>>> Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
>>>
>>>
>>> The content of this email may contain private
>>> and confidential information. Do not forward,
>>> copy, share, or otherwise distribute without
>>> explicit written permission from all correspondents.
>>>
>>> ********************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/