ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and SystemsEngineering] Relationship b

To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: joseph simpson <jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:56:49 -0800
Message-id: <CAPnyebyDD9xO4osVefJkRFDdVj9LYcuNuSLZAX7n+5qHRv=UBw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Christopher:

The volume of interesting topics on this list can be overwhelming, if any effort is applied to each one.

Two main system distinctions I have been working to establish are:

Distinction One:
   1.1-  Natural systems (items or objects that compose the system are not artifacts of human activity)

   1.2-  Artificial systems (items or objects that compose the system are artifacts of human activity)

 Distinction Two:
   2.1- Humans use the concept of a system to discover systems (observation, data collection and analysis)

   2.2- Humans use the concept of a system to design systems (application of the evaluation and categorization of 2.1)

The assignment of the binding system relationship is a human activity (mapping of the system relationship to the system object is a human activity)

Specific disciplines of inquiry and science have been developed to facilitate the activities associated with 2.1 and 1.1.

Mathematics and abstract theoretical approaches have been developed by humans as tools for analysis, discovery, categorization and communication.

Mathematics contains no specific application area information by design.

However mathematics can be applied to all areas of human endeavor to assist communication and application of systems concepts.

For example, the principles of Hebbian learning (real neural networks) were developed in the area of medical science.

The information and structure of these types of natural systems was generalized into artificial intelligence applications to create artificial neural networks and fuzzy cognitive maps.

So the natural system structure was observed, analyzed and generalized to support application in many areas other than medical science.

What I have described is an application of general systems theory (GST).  GST is the activity of theoretical model-building which lies somewhere between the highly generalized constructions of pure mathematics and the specific theories of specialized disciplines.

Many areas of human creative and integrative activity benefit from the application of GST techniques.

Industrial system engineering (world wide supply chain the creates large aircraft) is an application of GST.

Building a large-scale ontology is an application of GST.

When a large-scale system contains physical items (like the world wide air transport system), the GST formulations move closer to concepts associated with specific disciplines.

When a large-scale system contains no physical items (just concepts - like a logic system), the GST formulations move closer to pure mathematical formulations.

The first step in addressing system structure is the determination of the mode of the system concept.

The activity of discovering the physical structure of atoms and molecules is very close to specific scientific disciplines.

The activity of encoding and communicating the information associated with physical chemistry is more abstract.

The activity of creating and ontology to represent the structure of physical chemistry is completely abstract.

Take care and have fun,

Joe




On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Spottiswoode <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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/



_________________________________________________________________
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/




--
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/     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>