ALL, ... I just discovered that a message I posted last Friday didn't
seem to have made it to the archives (therefore, it probably never got
distributed.) Let me repost 9the message below) again, and hope it
help bring the discourse back to the core objectives of this summit,
... (01)
regards. =ppy (02)
---------- original message ----------
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit process [was - Re: [Big
Systems and SE] summit session-03]
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (03)
Dear Joseph, (04)
> [JS] I believe this primary distinction [between "big systems"
> and "systems engineering"] is important. (05)
[ppy] I totally agree. That distinction can be discussed, as
vigorously now, as we did a week ago (before the track labels were
updated). (06)
> [JS] If the objective of the summit activity is to make a distinction
> between "big systems" and "systems engineering" ... (07)
[ppy] If ... but it wasn't that.
Ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012#nid3098
//
... The principal goal of the summit is to bring together and foster
collaboration between the ontology community, systems community, and
stakeholders of some of the "big systems." Together, the summit
participants will exchange ideas on how ontological analysis and
ontology engineering might make a difference, when applied in these
"big systems. ...
// (08)
> [JS] 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. (09)
[ppy] I obviously agree with the first statement. I would even
venture to suggest that it might even help us avoid some "premature
optimization." (010)
As for the second statement, I do agree, although, as pointed out
above, the ontological discussion on "what is a system" or "what is
system engineering" (or something of that sort) is actually not the
principal goal of this OntologySummit, although, admittedly, they need
to be addressed while we are trying to reach our goal. (011)
Regards. =ppy
-- (012)
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM, joseph simpson <jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx> 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
> --
> Joe Simpson
>
> Sent From My DROID!! (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (014)
|