| David, Your impression of INCOSE is incomplete. INCOSE specifically 'deals' with the human activity called system engineering which is about as natural a system as you can find --- weeds and all. Jack On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:41 AM, David Price wrote:
Hi Mike,
Being a Systems Engineering body, INCOSE only deals with engineered
systems, not natural systems. Perhaps that means their definition
should be qualified to be for the term 'engineered system', rather
than 'system'? I realize over time the distinction between natural
and engineered system elements is going to become blurred (e.g.
humans with embedded circuits/chips), but for the purpose of this
summit the distinction may be useful.
Cheers,
David
On 2/7/2012 6:20 PM, 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/
--
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/
|