Jack, Re: If the stimulus:response paradigm doesn't hold then what it the alternative paradigm [cbc] I should have said external stimulus, there can still be stimulus-response patterns inside the collaboration and sometimes externally. One representation we use is the “ServicesArchitecture” in SoaML – which is essentially a collaborative system of systems joined with services (also collaborations) – each of which has stimulus/response patterns. One of these days we will get around to doing an ontology representation of SoaML. -Cory From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:43 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystemsandSystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems Cory, An interesting thing about interchanges regarding systems and system of systems is the revelations about the respective participant's ladders of inference and thinking patterns. FWIW, you do not have to imagine two different configurations responding to a stimulus the same way, all you have to do is read what Wymore has to say about homomorphs. This is proven especially useful to those interested in federating diverse systems. Every telephone call you initiate to the same number is not serviced in exactly the same way. That is your first clue that system is signified by response to stimulus, not by repertoire of components and interrelationships. If the stimulus:response paradigm doesn't hold then what it the alternative paradigm? The co in collaboration indicates response to stimulus. Otherwise quiescient. Perhaps your elucidation of federation will reveal some new insights. Thanks for this. Jack On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Cory Casanave wrote:
With the scale and lose control of federations I can’t imagine 2 “configurations” responding to the same “stimulus”, so I guess this doesn’t bother me. Do we have 2 global telephone federations that would respond in the “same way”? As for “distinct systems”, systems of systems are also overlapping and rarely would have all parts involved in any stimulus, so I guess that doesn’t both me either. Again with the telephone analogy, if I call from DC to London am I concerned that Tokyo is not involved? In fact many of the stimulus in a federation are from other federates so the stimulus response paradigm may not hold well. A SOS is more of a collaboration. Perhaps these are either indications that I am overly relaxed today or that there are some unique characteristics to this SOS thing. Does it not concern you that saying system of systems loses the propositions and concerns of systems? For example, what shall you call two distinctly different configurations that respond to a stimulus exactly the same? Are these homomorphs two different systems? For example, what shall you call that thing that involves all of its components and relationships in responding to Stimulus A but only part of them in responding to Stimulus B. Is it two distinct systems --- in sheep's clothing? On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Cory Casanave wrote: Perhaps this is 50% marketing but there is another 50%. Any system has components but it seems like there are some fundamental impacts when considering large-scale federation Vs. a system that a single team is “designing”. In a federation each federate has its own thread of control and concerns internally and with regard to the federation. In a closed systems design you can be “reductionist”, in a federation you can’t. My experience is that it is a very different mindset which implies some different methods, tools and languages. For example, the use-case for ontologies is much stronger in such a federation. Since the value of and problems associated with “systems of systems” is becoming better understood it makes sense to me to capitalize this and talk about how to address these needs. Just saying everything is a system loses the value proposition and special concerns this need imples. These 'distinctions' apply to any system as well (whether noticed or not) so are not really distinctions. Why clutter up the language by saying that Microsoft Windows is an Operating System of Systems or that marriage is a system of systems? On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Cory Casanave wrote: Those definitions seem reasonable. I would add that for a “system of system” (which I consider to be almost a synonym for federated systems) there is no single design authority and likewise no single lifecycle. The specific design and lifecycle is essentially emergent from its component systems. That said, there are certain aspects of the federation that are designed and influence both the design and lifecycle of the federates (or federate proxies). It is the separation of concerns necessary to achieve federation without undue impact on the federates that impacts our ability to achieve large-scale collaborative systems of systems. 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 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 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 :) ----- 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 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/
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|