Mike, First discover who authorized calling any natural phenom a "system." Calling a dog's tail a leg doth not a five-legged dog make. As the bumper sticker says, System Happens.cheers, On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Mike Bennett wrote:
Good one - so it has objective as well as components.
That raises some deep philosophical questions for emergent, natural
systems. Do these have a "Purpose"? If you believe in a Creator as
described in most Feudal-era belief systems, that Creator created
natural things with a purpose, but if you don't, you don't. Clearly
there are people both sides of that divide.
Where this has some practical impact is when you look at medical
pathology, which implicitly replaces a directed, goal-oriented
Creator with a similarly directed, goal-oriented Evolution. This of
course is not the evolution recognized by evolutionary theorists,
but it is clearly implied by the language of pathology, in which
there is only ever one "right" way to be, many "wrong" ways which
deviate from this. This leads to absurdities like asking the
logically inevitable question of whether left-handedness is
pathological. We all know it is not, but the logic in which
pathology is framed implies that it is. So people have to work
around the unchallenged but incorrect world view whereby there was
some intention in how the system of a human body and mind were
intended to be, by some intending agent.
The only reason I bring this up is that in looking at an ontology
for a "system" which is an emergent, natural system one therefore
has to deal with, not what are the "Right" and "Wrong" ontological
views of these things, but what is the required ontological
commitment for a given ontology for a given emergent system. You
might have two or more ontologies of the same natural system (such
as the body) written according to different world views and
different ontological commitments. One of those ontologies may
comply with the definition of "System" which you gave; another may
not. A third may ensure that the ontological commitment is framed in
such as way as to not expose those questions at all.
The interesting question is, how do you quantify those commitments
and world views, such that you can verify whether the ontology of
that natural system is fit for the purpose for which it was
intended. That is, how do you do quality assurance on ontologies of
natural systems, with reference to how they are framed?
Mike
On 07/02/2012 17:54, David Price wrote:
INCOSE says the 'system' in 'systems engineering' means:
- an integrated set of elements, subsystems, or assemblies that
accomplish
a defined objective. These elements include products (hardware,
software,
firmware), processes, people, information, techniques, facilities,
services,
and other support elements. (INCOSE) An example would be an air
transportation system.
System of system is then:
System‐of‐systems applies to a system‐of‐interest whose system
elements are themselves systems; typically these entail large
scale inter‐disciplinary problems with multiple, heterogeneous,
distributed systems.
and system of interest is:
System‐of‐interest the system whose life cycle is under
consideration
ISO/IEC 15288:2008 Systems engineering – System life‐cycle
processes says:
- a combination of interacting elements organized to achieve one
or more
stated purposes
FWIW I happen to be in the middle of making a SKOS instantiation
of the INCOSE SE Handbook terms and definitions for a NIST
investigation.
Cheers,
David
On 2/7/2012 5:42 PM, Mike Bennett wrote:
Surely a system is something for which there are things which
have part-hood relationships to that thing. Having parts would
be what distinguishes a system (at this most general level) from
a bunch of stuff.
Just a suggestion.
Mike
On 07/02/2012 17:25, joseph simpson wrote:
The first step in this process is defining a
system.
If you can not define a system then you can not define a
complex system or a system of systems.
So, I still wonder if we have developed distinction criteria
for a system.
(A "system of systems" is by definition a system.)
Have fun,
Joe
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:07 AM,
AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I still wonder if we have
developed the distinction criteria for the complex
systems and the systems of systems.
----- Original Message
-----
Sent: Friday,
February 03, 2012 9:56 PM
Subject: Re:
[ontology-summit][BigSystemsandSystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
Yuriy:
Because the name of this track is Big Systems and
Systems Engineering this topic fits under the
topic of mathematics (a very big system).
However, engineering in general is a bit different
and systems engineering is even more different.
Engineering is the act of applying mathematics and
scientific principles to the solution of practical
problems.
So, math is a tool used by engineers to solve
problems.
Then there are systems science and metasystems
methodology that set the context for the
application of systems engineering.
There is little or no magic involved in these well
defined approaches and processes for designing,
developing, deploying and operating large-scale
systems.
However, as Arthur C. Clarke detailed in his three
laws, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."
In my mind we are discussing a very advanced
technology that integrates large stores of data,
information and technology.
It is not magic.
Take care and have fun,
Joe
2012/2/3 Yuriy Milov <qdone@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Joe,
If a () system of ()
systems exists then a (very (simple))
system is still a system of (very (very
(simple))) system.
It's amaizing
to know a very simple system which
demonstrates very complex behavior. This is a fantastic gift.
We do not deserv it - but we have it! :)
We could think that
the natural numbers (1,2,3,4,5,6,7.. so
on) is simple. Are we sure?
Let's choose a
natural number n1 (free, spontaneously,
without any reasons - just any of
natural numbers) and then let's choose again any natural
number n2 (free, spontaneously, without
any reasons - just any of natural
numbers).
The more freedom of
choice we have - the more chances that
n2>n1
Absolute freedom of
choice makes n2>n1 guaranteed
The reason of this
is that there is no a biggest natural
number (that is also an amazing fact, by
the way)
We (people) are
finite (in space and time) pretty simple
entities. How can we understand
infinity?
The answer is -
because ae are able to play with
a freedom of choice - thanks for the
great gift - the natural numbers :)
The logistic
equations and cellular automata are
magic wands whaich transform complex
system of systems in a simple set
1,2,3 and so on :)
Yuri
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Friday, February 03, 2012 3:29 AM
Subject:
Re: [ontology-summit]
[BigSystemsandSystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
The logistic equation is a math model of
the behavior of a living system.
A very simple system can demonstrate
very complex behavior.
In my view this is another example of
general systems theory (GST) where a
specific branch of science was
generalized into mathematics and applied
in many places.
However, this is behavior of a simple
system, not a system of systems or an
industrial system.
Have fun,
Joe
On Thu, Feb 2,
2012 at 1:49 PM, Yuriy Milov <qdone@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Jack,
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)
The magics here is our ability to
distinguish the related and
unrelated
events - where the bifurcated
branchs (splitted paths) belongs one
tree
(one way)
Sorry if it is too vague methafora -
I do some urgent job right now
Yuri
_________________________________________________________________
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/
--
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/
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
_________________________________________________________________
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/
--
Managing Director and Consultant
TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336-283-0606
_________________________________________________________________
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/
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|