There was a good article in Sept 2011 HBR about complexity by Sargut and
McGrath, in organizations specifically, that suggested that 'complex'
was differentiated from 'complicated' by the fact that the same inputs
did not necessarily result in the same outputs (this is the 'emergent'
behavior people mention). Six Sigma approaches, for example, can be
applied to complicated processes but not to complex ones. They said that
what made systems complex was three properties: 1) multiplicity of
interacting elements, 2) interdependence of those elements and 3)
diversity of the elements. Interestingly, they claimed that: (01)
"It's possible to understand both simple and complicated systems by
identifying and modeling the relationship between the parts; the
relationships can be reduced to clear, predicable interactions. It's not
possible to understand complex systems in this way, because all the
elements are interacting continuously and unpredictable." (02)
They use Air Traffic Control as an example of a complex system that must
adapt to weather, etc. vs. flying a commercial airplane as an example
something complicated, but not complex, as it involves predictable
steps. I found the HBR article more compelling an explanation than what
I've seen in the summit so far. (03)
Cheers,
David (04)
On 1/30/2012 9:19 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Christopher Spottiswoode wrote:
>
>> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (05)
--
Managing Director and Consultant
TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336-283-0606 (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|