You may be remembered more fondly if you use complexness when referring to a
system propery.
Complexity is a property of the relationship between system complexness and
observer naivety.
Don't let its misuse to date by enjinears confuse you. (01)
On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Christopher Spottiswoode wrote: (02)
> Jack - well spotted!
>
> I hadn't wanted to raise that point just yet, especially as "ontology as
> algorithm" isn't exactly my favoured way of describing the essential
> issue, but in The Mainstream Architecture for Common Knowledge ontology
> and algorithm are inseparable in a way very important to the "Ontology
> Chemistry" metaphor. That feature is even key to the agile hence
> evolvable applications that will result, as the appropriate approach to
> complexity (complexity of course including the impenetrability of Big
> Systems).
>
> Otherwise it wouldn't be the fun I had said (below) that it will be.
>
> ((But I really must get down to spelling the full story out properly
> here, rather than allow myself to be distracted by all these tempting
> leads...))
>
> Enthusiastically,
> Christopher
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Ring" <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Ontology Summit 2012 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and
> SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>
>
> Well, then, this panel may produce useful results if we examine the
> other aspects of Christopher's view.
>
> If an ontology is an algorithm (however large in extent, variety and
> ambiguity) then the artifact expressing the ontology must be modularized
> and orchestration-enabled. This makes the design of the artifact a
> systemist's challenge to rationalize both the semiotic (content) and the
> architectural (structural) issues.
>
> The Semantic Web effort seems to have missed this point.
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Christopher Spottiswoode wrote:
>
>> Joe, Anatoly,
>>
>> You both make very useful points. Here I highlight just 2 of them:
>>
>> AL:
>>> This ontologizing-in-the-large lead to your need to define not only
>>> ontology-as-algorithm but also communication protocol between
>>> ontology components that reside in different nodes. I doubt that
>>> mantra about "federation" is helpful here. If you have web
>>> programming (that is in essence programming-in-the-large) you speak
>>> not about "federating" of web-server, load balancer, database,
>>> web-page generation, ad banner importing, etc. but have another
>>> engineering approach (while all that software developed by different
>>> organizations and reside on different computers).
>>
>> As I shall be describing in some detail later, appropriate
>> architecture leads to good 'Separation of Concerns', hence reliable
>> and flexible application modularity while also enhancing the various
>> other qualities usually sought. That is what a properly
>> ontology-based architecture should of course produce, and "federation"
>> is a good word to describe the result at the in-the-large level.
>>
>> In contrast to what I shall be describing, the conventional web
>> programming you highlight is complication-inducing rather than
>> complexity-respecting
>>
>> JS:
>>> I suggest that the "binding force" or "binding concept" that forms a
>>> number of items in to one entity is a key feature.
>>
>> Yes! That is indeed most strongly the case in the architecture I
>> shall be describing (or trying once again to describe, lessons
>> hopefully having been learnt...).
>>
>> All of which recalls that now very mainstream IS programming precept:
>> Larry Constantine's "high module cohesion with loose module coupling".
>> We don't have to reinvent that wheel.
>>
>>> Have fun,
>>>
>>> Joe
>>
>> Yes thanks, Joe, we sure will!
>>
>> Christopher
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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/ (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (04)
|