|
Jack,
You say below:
> Restricting Discovery to natural systems leaves a gap in
discovery of the "real problem" that stakeholders want the system of interest to
mediate.
I strongly second your comment. Our ever more
interconnected artificial world is an ever-growing part of any Big Problem (or
Wicked Problem), with no end of surprises to be discovered by open minds.
And what a pity we so often need live and unmanaged experimentation with our
half-baked systems on real people to help us make such discoveries.
Such is the background to the qualities of
application agility and evolvability that I so often mention, also to the
simulation I am still to talk much about.
Joe did however merely observe that limiting
discovery to natural systems was a human tendency. He did not insist that
it was desirable.
Discovery is after all implicit in "requirement
elicitation", and goes beyond the mere setting of OTS package parameters. (For
more from Systems Analysis 101.)
But you are right: the aspect of discovery
does still need to be brought out continually, given how we system designer
types so easily give the impression we believe there's nothing left for us
to discover... (speaking at least for myself.)
And Joe's final comment, that
> Mixing
these modes may generate a high degree of semantic conflict.
sure needs to be kept in mind. We shall
always have very political roles to play.
(And thanks to all who are helping me with
that. It is true that I have been working alone for too
long.)
Christopher
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:32
AM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
[BigSystems and SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
Pretty good. Suggest you consider that in the construct rule
the relations may be among the relations as well as among the objects
(Weinberg). In other words, relations may be objects, too (as in perspective
shift). This is important to systems and may be a challenge to ontologists.
Warfield also proposed the Discovery and Design notion but Discovery was
about the problem system (context of the system of interest) whereas Design
was about the system of interest. Restricting Discovery to natural systems
leaves a gap in discovery of the "real problem" that stakeholders want the
system of interest to mediate.
On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:59 AM, joseph simpson wrote:
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/
|