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)
|