Jack, I like your point about "complexness" rather than "complexity" for
qualifying our own constructions. (01)
I also very much appreciate this view you present of complexity: (02)
> Complexity is a property of the relationship between system
> complexness and observer naivety. (03)
I am more accustomed to insisting that any real Situation we are faced
with when conceptualizing is axiomatically "complex" and capable of more
than we do conceptualize for any given purpose. Then all we can produce
from any given Situation (when we manage not to "oversimplify" it...)
runs the risk of being "complicated" and especially "overcomplicated". (04)
That view is quite consistent (as viewed informally) with your making
the contrast with observer naivety rather than with the observer's
conceptual product. (05)
I am saying rather more on this whole subject in what I shall shortly be
putting up on the wiki, but I shall nonetheless still be talking about
"Complex Adaptive Systems" (CAS) and their "complexity", because that is
the convention and I am already ignoring a rather dangerous proportion
of convention in my whole picture! (06)
And in fact, CAS actually do tend to create their own real and
unpredictable Situations to confront us with. They become part of the
given reality, and often a very important part. (07)
Hence of course this excellent Summit Theme. (08)
(And I really am trying hard not to overcomplicate it!)
((But it will also appear much simpler when I better introduce my
favourite Homeric metaphor...))
((So please have just a little bit more patience with me?))
Christopher (09)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Ring" <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ontology Summit 2012 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems
andSystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems (010)
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. (011)
On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Christopher Spottiswoode wrote: (012)
> 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/ (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)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (015)
|