In the spirit of your key question here, Joe, I would suggest Cory's
term, federation. (01)
It points to perhaps the most constructive approach to this overarching
issue. (02)
And Cory's emphasis on the data aspect is even more practically
constructive. (03)
Then, to revert to generalizations (still most practical, as I'll try to
show in much more detail later), let's also bear in mind one of the key
principles of federation, subsidiarity, namely that any matter in such
loose organizations is best handled at the lowest practical level of
authority. (04)
"Subsidiarity" has featured strongly in the EU's entire motivation.
That single word has even been said to be the secret of the EU's success
(though now we should note that the present travails of that EU subset,
the Eurozone, are due to inconsistent application of that principle). (05)
In our ontology context, subsidiarity matches the observed success of
middle-level or application ontologies rather than widely-shared
top-level or foundational ontologies. (06)
So what our "big system" Summit theme may be seeking or calling for is
the thinnest conceptual structure needed to enable and enhance practical
data federation for that sorely-missing reusability and interoperation. (07)
Christopher (08)
----- Original Message -----
From: joseph simpson
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and SystemsEngineering]
System ofsystems (09)
One key question is the relationship, among the parts, that is used to
make the whole. (010)
For example one consider: (011)
--- "system of parts" (012)
--- "collection of parts" (013)
--- "aggregation of parts" (014)
--- "group of parts" (015)
--- "set of parts" (016)
--- "association of parts" (017)
But would: (018)
--- "part of parts" make any sense? (019)
Have fun, (020)
Joe (021)
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (022)
(Just re-labeling the conversastion to something more appropriate ...
please continue the thread here, instead. =ppy) (023)
---------- original message ----------
From: AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit process
[was-Re:[BigSystemsand SE] summit session-03]
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (024)
--- "system of systems" (a group of interrelated but independent
systems making a whole) (025)
--- "collection of systems" (several systems considered as a whole) (026)
--- "aggregation of systems" (several systems considered as a whole) (027)
--- "group of systems" (any number of systems considered as a whole) (028)
--- "set of systems" (a group of systems of the same kind) (029)
--- "association of systems" (a relation of systems resulting from
dependence or interaction)
The system of systems (SoS) draws an enormous interest, theoretical
and practical. It's most important to specify this key type of complex
systems, together with metasystems, their distinctions, definitions
and meanings, scope, and properties and applications.
The system of systems research, egineering and applications are among
priority projects in research institutions, government agencies and
commercial entities, as MIT, DoD, NASA.
Ontology is fully capable to provide fundamental principles, reference
standards, and formal methodology for the SoS engineering and
applications, which are just as many as the networks of heterogenous
systems of all sorts and types. (030)
Azamat Abdoullaev (031)
----- Original Message -----
From: joseph simpson
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit process
[was-Re:[BigSystemsand SE] summit session-03] (032)
Is anyone making a distinction among: (033)
--- "system of systems" (034)
--- "collection of systems" (035)
--- "aggregation of systems" (036)
--- "group of systems" (037)
--- "set of systems" (038)
--- "association of systems?" (039)
Joe (040)
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Christopher Spottiswoode
<cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Already a preliminary P.S. on that thought:
>
> Hobbes' Leviathan was first published 360 years ago. But we may
> surely presume we aren't full circle back to Hobbesian strong central
> government, here in the form of excessive reliance on any central
> ontology.
>
> Even though the Babel, like Leviathan, has biblical sanction. (041)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher Spottiswoode
> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit process
> [was-Re:[BigSystemsand SE] summit session-03]
>
> 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 (042)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AzamatAbdoullaev
> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit process
> [was -Re:[BigSystemsand SE] summit session-03]
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher Spottiswoode
> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
> 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 (043)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AzamatAbdoullaev
> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
> 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? (044)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Schiffel, Jeffrey A
> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
> 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 (045)
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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. (046)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (047)
--
Joe Simpson (048)
Sent From My DROID!! (049)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (050)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|