Hi Jack, (01)
I think the metod is to follow the cascade of bifurcation which has the
universal mesure (a sort of the delta number which can be got from
experiment/experience) (02)
The magics here is our ability to distinguish the related and unrelated
events - where the bifurcated branchs (splitted paths) belongs one tree
(one way) (03)
Sorry if it is too vague methafora - I do some urgent job right now (04)
Yuri (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Ring" <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ontology Summit 2012 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems
andSystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems (06)
> Quite so. However, what method do we have for reaching 'universality.'
>
> On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Yuriy Milov wrote:
>
>> Adding - just to clarify of meaning of univerality of the complex systems
>> that Stephen Wolfram provides in his "A New Kind of Science" (p 690):
>>
>> "... the fact that as soon as one has a system that is universal, adding
>> further complication to its rules cannot have any fundamental effect. For
>> by
>> virtue of its universality the system can always ultimately just emulate
>> the
>> behavior that would be obtained with any more complicated set of rules.
>> So what this means is that if one looks at a sequence of systems with
>> progressively more complicated rules, one should expect that the overall
>> behavior they produce will become more complex only until the threshold
>> of
>> universality is reached. And as soon as this threshold is passed, there
>> should then be no further fundamental changes in what one sees."
>>
>> http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-690-text?firstview=1
>>
>> Yuriy Milov
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Yuriy Milov" <qdone@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Ontology Summit 2012 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit][BigSystems and
>> SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>>
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Sorry guys if I missed something in this thread but when I hear SOS I
>>> cannot
>>> be out :)
>>>
>>> Sometimes the jokes have meaning - it's not a joke
>>>
>>> I want to share few links here which make a sense for me regarding the
>>> topic
>>>
>>> I mean the Feigenbaum Universality
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Feigenbaum and the Matthew Cook
>>> and/or Stephen Wolfram Rule 110 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110
>>>
>>> Каждый понимает в меру своей
>испорченности, но, как хорошо всем
>>> известно,
>>> все уже было давно украдено до нас... тьфу
>ты - сказано, конечно :)
>>>
>>> BTW I guess but don't understand why we use English instead of Russian
>>> language to discuss such complicated topics - as it is so naturally to
>>> use
>>> the best tool (the language formal or informal in this case) if we plan
>>> to
>>> make a quality artifact - Anatoly Levenchuk understands me ;)
>>>
>>> Even the self-reference paradox and recursion has been discussed for
>>> thousands years today we have few outstanding discoveries that could
>>> move
>>> this topic from metaphysics to computational science to implement the
>>> new
>>> understanding of SOS (both self-organized systems and systems of
>>> sysmems),
>>> complex and universal dynamics of non-linear systems into the
>>> engineering
>>> area and computing.
>>>
>>> As futher generalization I want to hope that the universal laws (both
>>> natural and human) show us the universal paths, and we just need to
>>> catch
>>> the hints to reach the universal goals.
>>>
>>> I have to focus on some practical things right now, so I apologize
>>> ahead -
>>> if I miss some comments, if the coments, and if so on :)
>>> Hope to participate in this great dicussion later
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention
>>> Yuriy Milov
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "henson graves" <henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'"
>>> <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:31 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit][BigSystems and
>>> SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anatoly,
>>>> I do not think I am disagreeing with you very much. I certainly agree
>>>> with
>>>> your definition of sos. Your classification of sos makes good sense.
>>>> The
>>>> principles needed to analyze, organize sos can be developed. They are
>>>> somewhat different from traditional SE theory and practice, but so
>>>> what.
>>>> - henson
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anatoly
>>>> Levenchuk
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:18 AM
>>>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'
>>>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and
>>>> SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>>>>
>>>> Henson refer to my text from another thread, I need to repeat it here:
>>>> --- /quote---
>>>> Need to clarify: systems of systems is not simply about decomposition
>>>> of
>>>> system to another systems!
>>>>
>>>> 1. ISO 15288 intentionally depart from traditional terminology
>>>> "system-subsystem" and have only "system" at all levels - for stressing
>>>> recursive usage of systems engineering life cycle processes on all
>>>> levels.
>>>> This is not "system of systems", it another wording: every "system"
>>>> consists
>>>> from "system elements" that can be regarded as "systems". This is
>>>> "systems
>>>> in system" hierarchy (while usually this has no usage as a term and
>>>> words
>>>> "system" stay apart in a sentence). This is all about modules.
>>>>
>>>> All this system-of-interest has "passive" systems/modules in it, thus
>>>> permitting usual development lifecycle
>>>> (requirements-architecture-design-implementation-integration-transfer
>>>> into
>>>> operation-operations-retirement). This life cycle applicable on every
>>>> level
>>>> of systems in system (of interest, not system-of-systems!).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. "System of systems" is a term that describe specific situation when
>>>> we
>>>> need create system from already established systems (not modules!)
>>>> while
>>>> each of this established systems has autonomy (owner, systems in
>>>> operational
>>>> environment, enabling systems etc.) and thus have difficulties to
>>>> change
>>>> to
>>>> fit upper level "system of system". There was (and is) multiple
>>>> attempts
>>>> to
>>>> develop special "system of systems" methodologies but all of them
>>>> appear
>>>> like retelling of management, conflictology, politics, economy and so
>>>> on
>>>> theories with "system" language. Nothing new was created up to now, no
>>>> specific concepts and processes appears, no strong results obtained.
>>>> There
>>>> is one exclusion: system of systems impossible to "develop" and apply
>>>> to
>>>> them usual engineering process (like that in ISO 15288): there is
>>>> nonsufficient authority to perform it due to autonomy of each system
>>>> (each
>>>> of this system have its own architector and primary stakeholders). Thus
>>>> system of systems can only evolve during evolution process with
>>>> coordinated
>>>> development in each of its systems. If you have system of systems (e.g.
>>>> in
>>>> organizational engineering) you have to think in evolution terms, not
>>>> in
>>>> traditional engineering ones.
>>>>
>>>> System of systems is all about autonomy and independence and
>>>> impossibility
>>>> of developing in usual process --
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_systems
>>>>
>>>> We have several meetings of INCOSE Russian chapter where think about
>>>> system
>>>> of systems in application to enabling system (that is usually
>>>> organization
>>>> that have every single employee as owner of oneself thus autonomous and
>>>> not
>>>> permit to "developing" as a passive system-of-interest). I have a talk
>>>> about
>>>> it a couple years ago on one of the international system of systems
>>>> workshop
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/ailev/enabling-systems-of-systems-engineering
>>>> ---quote/-------
>>>>
>>>> There is classification of system of systems in the relation of
>>>> "architectural manageability" that mentioned by Henson:
>>>> -- directed (that have appointed architect that have authority and
>>>> resources
>>>> to rule systems in system of systems);
>>>> -- acknowledged (that have recognizable architect of system of systems,
>>>> but
>>>> architect have no authority and resources to command each of systems);
>>>> -- collaborative (systems negotiate in every evolution step, but there
>>>> are
>>>> no system of systems architect or project manager);
>>>> -- virtual (systems in system of systems do not know about existence of
>>>> each
>>>> other, overall system of systems exist only in somebody mind)
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Anatoly Levenchuk
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>>>>> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of henson graves
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:57 PM
>>>>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and
>>>>> SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Anatoly's characterization of "System of systems" is a
>>>>> term
>>>> that
>>>>> describe specific situation when we need create system from already
>>>>> established systems (not modules!) while each of this established
>>>>> systems has autonomy (owner, systems in operational environment,
>>>>> enabling systems
>>>>> etc.) and thus have difficulties to change to fit upper level "system
>>>>> of
>>>> system.
>>>>> However, when the owners of the systems agree on a common objective
>>>>> they can sometimes achieve a common objective while continuing with
>>>>> individual systems pursuits. It is definitely possible to build
>>>>> theories
>>>> which
>>>>> can be used to analyze when a system of systems is likely to work and
>>>> when
>>>>> it is almost certainly likely to fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example most large scale aerospace programs include many
>>>>> individual enterprises which also compete, e.g., Lockheed Martin and
>>>>> Boeing on the same team. By looking at how the system of enterprises
>>>>> is organized one can make good predictions of its success and
>>>>> potential problems. This is
>>>> not
>>>>> my primary intellectual interest but I have observed and participated
>>>>> in these systems of systems.
>>>>> - Henson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>>>> _
>>>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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/
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|