ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems

To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:56:30 -0700
Message-id: <FF803ABF-F1FC-46C0-87F7-40B7A5DA923F@xxxxxxxxx>

On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Jack Park wrote:    (01)

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> Well! Thanks for that, Jack. I hadn't even given that distinction any
> thought. Forced me to visit a search engine.
> 
> wiktionary.org says this:
> "complexness (uncountable). The state or quality of being complex"
> 
> wikipedia.org says this (among many other things):
> "Definitions are often tied to the concept of a "system"a set of
> parts or elements that have relationships among them differentiated
> from relationships with other elements outside the relational regime.
> Many definitions tend to postulate or assume that complexity expresses
> a condition of numerous elements in a system and numerous forms of
> relationships among the elements. At the same time, what is complex
> and what is simple is relative and changes with time."
> 
> wikipedia doesn't know the term "complexness". Maybe that means something.
> 
> I'm not debating definitions here, but I am curious about the
> information conveyed in this statement: "You may be remembered more
> fondly if you use complexness when referring to a system proper[t]y."
> I don't see this as one of those wicked problems that calls for a
> grand debate, but we do haggle terminology from time to time here.
> 
> In the end, I would really like to know if I should shift habits and
> adopt the use of "complexness" as if it reflected my native
> vernacular.
> 
> JackP
I estimate that upwards of 90% of 'injunearing' people use complexity to refer 
to something systems 'have. Conversely, Prof. John Warfield, editor of the 
General Systems Research Journal for 10 years, thought it was quite important 
that engineering people learned that complexity was not 'out there' but partly 
'in here' thus really an attribute of the relationship between the two. 
Is a Rubik's cube complex? Is complexity an attribute?  My friend Miles Burke 
can take any arbitrary one and return it to State Zero within 15 minutes while 
holding a conversation. (the procedure is published)    (02)

If your ontology sorted out this misuse of complexity thousand of people would 
come to appreciate you. A lingistics professer who knows little about systems 
advised that complexness was a better indicator of complex.     (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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>