Joe, thank you for the distinctions you make
here. (And sorry I have only now opened this input from you.)
You have prompted me to open a new
thread.
Whether or not you would approve of the words I
use, you at least remind me of a question I have often thought but promptly
forgotten to put to formal ontologists:
What work has been done on formal deduction of
system function from system structure, or vice versa?
As far as I am aware, at most very little of
practical relevance to our Big Systems has been achieved along those lines, but
I would be absolutely delighted to be enlightened, and to study the
techniques and their limits.
Please, some formal ontologist out there, point me
in the right direction?!
And why might I be so interested? Hint:
As one talking so much of "Ontology Chemistry" and composition from components,
I am intrigued to note a predominance of links in the areas of chemistry and
physiology.upon now, for the first time, googling /structure function
deduce/. Adding "ontology" to the search string brings about an enormous
reduction in the number found, from 23M to 3M, and many of the 3M are in
some biochemical field.
Perhaps I should add that I have long already
proceeded on the basis of a largely negative answer to my question, and that the
way Ontology Chemistry deals with that presumed problem is particularly
interesting. Oh, yes: and it would remain as interesting however much good
work I stand to learn of in answer to my question, if anyone can point me to
it. Any of that would be a special bonus for Ontology
Chemistry.
Hopefully,
Christopher
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:59
PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
[BigSystems and SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
For example three, now consider:
--- "system of (X)"
--- "part of (X)"
Where
X can be , laws, games, airplanes, cars, plants.. and so on..
The
"system concept" may be viewed as a real world relationship that is used to
order or constrain the environment.
Using this basic view, two types of
definitions for a system can be constructed as well as two main types of
activity for system concepts.
The two definition types are, function
(rule) and constructive (rule).
The two main activity types are
discovery and design.
The functional rule definition for a system was
given previously and is restated here, "A system is a constraint on variety,
where the constraint identifies and defines the system of
interest."
The construction rule definition for a system is, " A system
is a non-empty set of objects and a non-empty set of relationships
mapped over these objects and their attributes."
Humans tend to use the
concept of a system for two main activities:
---
Discovering, documenting and discussing natural systems (systems not
constructed by man).
--- Designing, documenting and
discussing artificial systems (systems constructed by man).
Johannes
Kepler's laws of planetary motion that describe the behavior of solar system
under the defining constraints of natural physical forces is one example of
using the system concept in the discovery mode.
The Wright brothers are
an example of the application of the system concept used in the design
mode.
These modes of application have different approaches, methods and
techniques.
Mixing these modes may generate a high degree of semantic
conflict.
Have fun,
Joe
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Christopher
Spottiswoode <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
-- Joe Simpson
Sent From My DROID!!
_________________________________________________________________ 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/
|