Dear All, (01)
A relevant example in engineering analysis may be an investigation of
why the mean time between failures of the offside headlamp is 2000
hours, whilst the mean time between failures of the nearside headlamp
is 4000 hours. (02)
We can have variants of this problem, where we are talking about:
a) the offside headlamp in a particular car (OK you would not do this
for something as cheap as a car, but you would for a particular role
of a pump in a power station);
b) the offside headlamp for a model of car.
The analyst will do more or less the same in each case. (03)
This seems simplifying, but looking at what analysts do in more
detail make it more complicated. An analysis is always an analysis of
a type/class of situation - even if what is investigate is a
particular failure of a particular individual. A type/class of
scenario is defined, often with ranges of values for all parameters,
and it is asserted that the situation under investigation is a member
of or a specialization of this type/class. This is why for the
analyst (a) and (b) are the same. (04)
This makes a definition of the analysed situation using current
ontological approaches difficult. For simplicity, an attempted formal
definition of an analysed situation often regards each thing as an
individual, but this is not true. (05)
My gut feeling is that we will get nowhere in doing this properly
until we have shorthand way of making statements about the
types/classes as if they were individuals. This sounds sordid, but in
mathematics we have free and bound variables - which is exactly this
approach. :) (06)
Best regards,
David (07)
At 09:58 02/02/2012, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Pat,
>
>It seems to me as if you are just playing with names here. If you want to
>call it a pump *role*, that is fine. But that what you are describing seems
>not to have the qualities that many people expect to be essential to roles.
>These (like qua entities) do not have an individual identity and they do not
>do things, they are not agents. Whereas, for example, spatio-temporal
>entities come bundled with identity. What have I missed?
>
>So the Hamlet example would better be Jonathon Pryce's 1992 Hamlet. Or even
>better if we use Chairman (President, Bishop or Monarch) , the difference
>between Chairman and the Chairman of Goldman Sachs.
>
>Also, not clear to me why you cannot kick your roles - as, again, they are
>spatio-temporal entities? When Ronnie Reagan was shot, people said they shot
>the President of the US, didn't they? They did not say thank goodness they
>only shot Mr Reagan - they could not shoot the President as he is a role.
>
>Regards,
>Chris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> > summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> > Sent: 02 February 2012 02:32
> > To: Matthew West
> > Cc: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] System Components
> >
> > Very good question, Matthew. Let me try out an idea on you. Your P101 is
> > actually a role played by a pump, rather than a pump itself. Think of it
>as
> > being like Hamlet, as played by Lawrence Olivier (P101 as played by
>S3556).
> > You can change actors, and Hamlet is still Hamlet - same role - and while
> > Olivier is playing the role, he *is* Hamlet, at least in a sense. But this
>second
> > "is" cannot be identity, since you can kick the actor, but you can't kick
>a role.
> >
> > Both a pump and a pump-role are spatiotemporal entities, but they have
> > different identity conditions. The identity of a pump, like any other
>physical
> > object, is determined by the disposition of pieces of material stuff
>(metal,
> > plastic, rubber), but the identity of the role is determined by its
>interfaces to
> > the rest of the system (being connected to this pipe in this place and
> > operated by this controller, etc..)
> >
> > You can identify a pump-phase (temporal slice) with a pump-role-phase, but
> > you must not identify the actual individuals, so its safer to actually
>have a
> > relation of 'functioning as' of the like to attach a role-playing thing to
>its role.
> > Or, you can treat the role as a time-dependent property of the physical
>thing,
> > but you will probably need a CL-style ability to have properties of
>properties
> > if you go that (elegant) route.
> >
> > Make sense?
> >
> > Pat
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 29, 2012, at 3:48 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Colleagues,
> > >
> > > Last Thursday I complained that most ontologies do not give adequate
> > > treatment to what I call system components, and if ontology is going
> > > to gain traction within the systems world, it needs to get a better
> > > understanding of this central idea in systems engineering.
> > >
> > > I illustrated the issue by telling the (simplified) life story of a
> > > system
> > > component: the pump, P101, at the bottom of a distillation column.
> > > Here is its story.
> > >
> > > The designer creates a drawing of the distillation column including at
> > > the bottom of the column a pump to pump away the column bottoms. He
> > > labels it P101, decides that one pump will be sufficient, and gives
> > > the specification for the pump in terms of Net Positive Suction Head,
> > > differential head, flow rate, materials of construction, and many other
> > things.
> > >
> > > The construction engineer picks up the drawing and specification and
> > > notices he has to install a pump as P101. Fortunately, he has a pump
> > > in stock from a previous project, that has been in stores unused for 5
> > > years which exactly meets the specification. On it is stamped Serial No
> > S3556.
> > >
> > > The designer and the Operator comes to see the pump be installed, and
> > > once the connections are made, he gives the pump a friendly kick and
> > > says to the construction engineer "It's good to see P101 realized at
> > > last". The construction engineer says in return "Yes, and it's good to
> > > get S3556 off my hands at last." He turns to the operator and says
> > > "Why don't we change your drawings to show S3556 instead of P101?" The
> > > operator says "No, don't do that, it's a replaceable part, and one day
> > > another pump will be put there, and I don't want to have to change all
> > > the drawings and other documentation that refers to P101 each time it
> > > is replaced, as far as I am concerned it's the same pump whatever is
> > installed there."
> > >
> > > Some time later the pump breaks down and needs to be taken back to the
> > > workshop. The maintenance engineer says to the operator "Hi, can I
> > > take
> > > S3556 installed as P101 back to the workshop?" The operator replies
> > > "Sure, but what am I supposed to do without my P101? If it does not
> > > exist I cannot operate my distillation column." The maintenance
> > > engineer responds, "I understand. We have another pump S4567, that
> > > meets the same specification as P101. We'll replace S3556 with it and
> > > you will only be without P101 for a few hours. I don't understand how
> > > you can continue to call it P101 though when all the parts have
> > > changed at once." The operator replies "I don't care about that. What
> > > I care about is what is connected in my system to pump the liquid from
> > > the bottom of the column. As long as it does that, it is P101 to me."
> > >
> > > Later the distillation column is demolished. The operator says, "A sad
> > > end, I was very fond of P101, but it is no more." The demolition
> > > engineer says, "Yes indeed. Fortunately, we can take S4567 and use it on
> > another plant."
> > >
> > > It's probably worth summarising the key characteristics of a system
> > > component:
> > > - It comes into existence the first time it is installed.
> > > - It is identical to the equipment items installed, whilst they are
> > > installed (but not before or after).
> > > - It can survive complete replacement of all its parts at once.
> > > - It can survive periods of non-existence.
> > > - It ceases to exist when the system it is a component of ceases to
>exist.
> > >
> > > This is clearly rather different from the life of ordinary physical
>objects.
> > > However, relatively few ontologies recognise that such things exist.
> > > Many try to fob system components off as being classes, or abstract
> > > individuals, though these clearly do not have the required
>characteristics.
> > >
> > > Ontologists need to step up to the mark here and provide proper
> > > recognition for system components.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Matthew West
> > > Information Junction
> > > Tel: +44 1489 880185
> > > Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> > > Skype: dr.matthew.west
> > > matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> > > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> > >
> > > This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
> > > England and Wales No. 6632177.
> > > Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> > > Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > > 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/
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > 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/ (08)
============================================================
David Leal
CAESAR Systems Limited
registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
registered in England no. 2422371
tel: +44 (0)20 8857 1095
mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
============================================================ (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (010)
|