|
Ah, thank you Azamat, for the nice
metaphor.
As long as we beware the "Leviathan"
associations.
A thought relevant, I believe, to the entire Summit
theme.
(More on which anon.)
Christopher
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:14
PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology
Summit process [was -Re:[BigSystemsand SE] summit session-03]
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:24
PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology
Summit process [was -Re:[Big Systemsand SE] summit session-03]
Azamat,
Sorry, I can't resist answering your
question:
> What is a
master-planned and well-designed city:
> systems of
systems or big systems?
Definitely your first alternative. The
second is either non-existent or a nightmare.
Of course, any such system of systems also
has to be very loosely-knit and dynamically-conceived.
AA: Ideally, to mimic the human organism, as
in "smart cities":
-
eco infrastructure (skeleton frame),
-
logistics and utilities, water
supply, energy networks, and wastage system (body processes, intake,
respiration, digestion, excreting),
-
digital ICT (telecommunications)
networks (the nerves),
-
transportation and mobility
(locomotion),
-
embedded intelligence (the brains),
-
sensors and tags (the sensory
organs),
-
intelligent software (the knowledge
and cognitive competence).
Regards,
Azamat
Respectfully,
Christopher
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:00
PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
Ontology Summit process [was -Re:[Big Systems and SE] summit
session-03]
What is a master-planned and well-designed
city: systems of systems or big systems?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 7:16
PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
Ontology Summit process [was - Re:[Big Systems and SE] summit
session-03]
The
engineers I work with commonly refer to ?systems of systems? instead of
?big systems.? Systems of systems are, as the name suggests, are
collections of coordinated systems. The most common variety are
network-centric systems.
Outside
the engineering world ? and in it, for that matter ? the common phrase
is ?complex systems.?
The
chief difference between systems and systems of systems, aside from
scale, is increased interest in emergent behaviors and the application
of hierarchy theories.
--
Jeff Schiffel
-------------------------------------------------------
From: Arun
Majumdar
FWIW: I consider "Big Systems" distinct from
"Systems Engineering" in that "Big Systems" are about size, depth,
breadth and complexity from an ontological, teleological and
epistemological schemes for naming, categorization, management,
curation, lifecycle and operations viewpoint. Systems Engineering,
in my viewpoint, is about engineering methodologies, tools, techniques,
approaches, strategies, cookbooks, and data/information/infrastructure
architectures.
On Jan 27, 2012, at 11:46 AM, joseph simpson
wrote:
Thanks, this kind of
organizational detail helps.
If the objective of the summit
activity is to make a distinction between "big systems" and "systems
engineering" then combining the tracks would make the identification of
that distinction more difficult.
I believe this primary
distinction is important.
However, I agree that combining the
tracks will not stop discussion. It will just eliminate the requirement
to make a "best guess" categorization of area to place the topic.
Discussion of this fundamental selection would enable the communication
of each individuals point of view.
For example, I would have
placed the discussion of Cyc in Big Systems, not Systems
Engineering. I would place the earth weather system in Big
Systems, not Systems Engineering.
I would place the discussion of
component engineering languages in the Systems Engineering area but
would call it concurrent component engineering, not systems
engineering. There is a difference between distributed, concurrent
component engineering and Systems Engineering.
But that just my
take on the domain areas, other views are just as valid at this
level.
Have fun,
Joe
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Seeing JackRing, JosephSimpson, TerryLongstreth,
etc.'s misgivings
about the announcement on "combining the tracks
1&2", (and even
JohnSowa's use of "track" in his suggestion that
we look at Cyc) I
believe we need some clarification on the
following really means, in
terms of the OntologySummit
process.
This is my take on the matter ...
* Track
- a broadstroke partitioning of various sub-focus under the
theme,
which allows us to cluster and manage the OntologySummit
discourse
more effectively
** Track Title - a label that broadly describes
what a particular track covers
** Track Mission - a statement
describing what a particular track
intends to achieve (and possibly a
bit on how it intends to do it)
** Track champion - volunteers
who are committing a lot of time and
effort to help get things
organized (within a track), moderate the
discussions, host virtual
panel sessions, and who will, eventually
help synthesize the inputs,
contributions and learnings from the
community that were channeled to
a particular track
* (virtual) Session - the weekly 2-hour
virtual (augmented conference
call) events that are featured during
the 3-months while the
OntologSummit is in session. These are
(nominally) chaired and
organized by the track champions. Because of
the time limitation,
there will only be about a dozen of these.
Depending on the number of
tracks there are, each track ends up
getting only one or two of these
sessions. These are the occasions
where summit participants get to
interact synchronously. Participants
are invited to offer to present
briefs of relevance (by sending a
title and an abstract of what they
want to present to the track
champions for consideration), or just
come to the sessions, and share
their insights (which will get
documented and archived) in real
time.
* (discussion) Thread / Subject - discussions made over
the
[ontology-summit] mailing list. These are usually jump-started,
and
coordinated by track champions. Topics can also be initiated by
anyone
in the OntologySummit community (i.e. those who are subscribed
to that
particular mailing list) as long as they are relevant to the
Summit
theme; and, of course, preferably relevant to a particular
track
mission. Participants are requested to properly prefix and
label a
discussion thread's subject line to make it easier for
everyone (and
for those who will be trying to synthesize the
transactions.)
Contributions should stay on topic, an if the
discussion is taking off
in a new direction, the contributor should
also modify the subject
line as appropriate. This is the most
generally used platform, with no
(within reason) limits (other than
the contributors' time and
imagination), and works asynchronously
among the OntologySummit
participants.
* CommunityInput and
Synthesis wiki-pages for the tracks - this is,
presumably,
self-explanatory. see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012#nid309C
...
under "Workspaces"
* Constraints - there are a lot that can be
done, but only some will
get done because we are constraint by time
(~3 months) and the limited
volunteered resources. Therefore, if
anyone is passionate about seeing
a particular aspect properly
addressed, please volunteer yourself to
help drive it.
So,
(my take again) ...
- Did we 'kill' the distinction between
"systems engineering" and
"engineered systems" by combining the two
tracks? ... I don't think
so. Those discussion threads are still
alive and kicking on the
[ontology-summit] list and in the in-session
chat inputs. No one is
(or can) call a stop to them.
- Did we
"kill" any discussion? ... not by way or combining or
relabeling the
tracks; but with the posting of the new track-1&2
mission
statement, the focus should now be very clearly defined, and
one can
better see where the champions would want to see the
discussions be
directed.
- Can we start a "track on Cyc"? ... probably not (any
more) at this
stage; and given the constraints, even having a
"session just on Cyc"
may not be the most appropriate. However,
JohnSowa's call to our
paying attention to Cyc and discuss what we
are learning from it, is a
absolutely brilliant idea. Input
into that thread John just started
will help move the discussion
forward. I'm sure Cyc has material that
is relevant to any and all of
our tracks, and various track champions
can consider addressing
certain aspects in one of their virtual
sessions. Getting those
activities properly coordinated would be the
organizing committee's
job (which the various co-champions can
discuss, offline, in the
organizing committee meetings or on their
[ontology-summit-org]
list.)
Regards. =ppy
--
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at
6:18 AM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
Having combined two distinct topics into one track you now ask that we
deselect our sub-topics to fit the limited bandwidth. Will this arrive
at a compelling summit in April?
> On Jan 27, 2012, at
2:01 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
Thank you very much for your contributions yesterday. Your talks
obviously
>> raised considerable
interest.
>>
>> If there is a problem, it is that
there is just too much material to go at
>> in the remainder of
the Ontology Summit on this track. So I would ask you
>> each
to nominate just two focussed topics from the discussions last
night,
>> that you would like to see progress made during the
rest of the summit.
>>
>> Mine are:
>> -
Ontology of System Components
>> - Design Language
Interoperability
>>
>>
>>
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|