On Tue, February 7, 2012 13:20 Mike Bennett <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
> ...
> 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. (02)
If we distinguish "Purpose" from "Function", then the question of
"Purpose" need not be asked. I distinguish "Purpose" with an intent,
while restricting "Function" to capabilities. (03)
Cyc has a ternary predicate #$behaviorCapable to specify that an
object can play a certain role in a certain type of situation, and
more specific predicates, #$primaryFunction,
#$intendedBehaviorCapable, and #$intendedPrimaryFunction to
move from function/capability to purpose. For "natural systems"
ontologies can model capabilities and functions without specifying
that they are purposeful/intended. For manufactured systems,
the intent can be asserted as well. As long as rules are appropriately
defined at the correct level (capability/function/intent) systems can
be described without raising the philosophical issues. (04)
Cyc also has a type-level ternary predicate, #$biologicalFunction,
that allows for statements such as (#$biologicalFunction #$Fin
#$Swimming-Underwater #$providerOfMotiveForce) . This predicate
"means that instances of the organism or body part, BLO-TYPE, are
able to act as a ROLE in a situation of type SIT-TYPE and such
situations naturally occur for such #$BiologicalLivingObjects. In a
creationist microtheory, this would be an #$intendedBehaviorCapable
for such instances." (05)
For systems engineering, the type-level functions seem important
for describing both required roles for components and properties
of parts considered for playing those roles, while the individual
level functions describe whether a specific component is faulty. (06)
Here are the #$comments from OpenCyc for
#$behaviorCapable:
"The predicate behaviorCapable is used to indicate that an object (an
instance of SomethingExisting) can play a role (an instance of
BinaryRolePredicate) in a type of situation (a specialization of
Situation). (behaviorCapable OBJ SIT-TYPE ROLE) means that OBJ is able to
play ROLE in a situation of type SIT-TYPE. Note that OBJ may or may not
have been designed to function in that way (see the specializations of
behaviorCapable, primaryFunction and intendedBehaviorCapable). Moreover,
unlike capableOf (q.v.), behaviorCapable does not imply that OBJ can
unquestionably act in that way in every such situation, since extrinsic
factors may prevent it from doing so; for example, if OBJ is a tool, it
may be in the wrong location or operated by a person lacking the requisite
skills. Examples: (intended capability) a hammer is behaviorCapable
[should be intendedPrimaryFunction] of being the deviceUsed in instances
of HammeringANail; (unintended capability) an inner tube is capable of
being the deviceUsed in instances of people FloatingInLiquid." (07)
#$primaryFunction:
"A specialization of behaviorCapable (q.v.) that is used to specify a
primary or particularly important function that a given object serves.
(primaryFunction OBJ SITTYPE ROLE) means that the primary function of OBJ
is to play ROLE in situations of the type SITTYPE. OBJ might be a natural
object that has a primary function (e.g the primary function of a heart is
to pump blood), or OBJ might be an artifact that was intentionally
designed to have the primary function that it does (e.g. the primary
function of a wall clock is to show the current time of day). For cases of
the latter sort, consider the more specialized predicate
intendedPrimaryFunction. Note that, while most things have one primary
function, some have more than one. For example, one might claim that the
two primary functions of a lung are to take in oxygen and to expell carbon
dioxide. For things that have only one main function, consider the
specialization soleFunction." (08)
#$intendedBehaviorCapable:
"... (intendedBehaviorCapable ARTIFACT SITTYPE ROLE) means that (i)
ARTIFACT can play ROLE in situations or events of type SITTYPE (see
behaviorCapable) and (ii) ARTIFACT is intended by its designer to play
ROLE in situations or events of type SITTYPE. Note that a given artifact
can be intended to be capable of serving more than one function. ..." (09)
#$intendedPrimaryFunction:
"A specialization of both primaryFunction and intendedBehaviorCapable
(qq.v.) that is used to indicate the primary or typical use a given
artifact (see Artifact-Generic) was designed to serve.
(intendedPrimaryFunction ARTIFACT SITTYPE ROLE) means that: (010)
(i) the primary function of ARTIFACT is to play ROLE in situations of the
type SITTYPE and
(ii) ARTIFACT was intended by its designer primarily to play ROLE in
SITTYPEs. ..." (011)
> 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. (012)
I don't see this at all. Medical pathology describes functions, even
though people may (imo sloppily) use terminology regarding purposes. (013)
> 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. (014)
Example? If you understand the vocabulary as dealing with
Function instead of Purpose (as distinguished above), this
"rightness" and "wrongness" becomes merely (in)capabilities of
individuals to match the functions and capabilities that (015)
> This leads to
> absurdities like asking the logically inevitable question of
> whether left-handedness is pathological. (016)
Hmm?
"In medicine, the term pathological means relting to, involving or
caused by disease."
-- The Probert Encyclopaedia of Medicine (017)
"1. Of or relating to pathology.
2. Relating to or caused by disease."
-- American Heritage Medical Dictionary (018)
"Disease related"
-- Int'l Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (019)
> We all know it is not, but the logic in which pathology is framed
> implies that it is. (020)
I'm not sure what definition of "pathological" you are referring to.
It does not seem to fit under a standard medical definition. (021)
> 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. (022)
If you want to model it, model it in a social context. Such models are
not needed, useful, or appropriate in a medical context. (023)
> 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. (024)
One should certainly clarify the context in which the system is
being defined. One can have different models (theories) of the
role that different aspects of a system play in different contexts. (025)
> 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. (026)
Sure. (027)
> 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. (028)
An agnostic context could specify basic theories that all interested
parties agree upon. Narrower contexts could have their own
contrasting theories, but use the same agnostic context that
is not in dispute. (029)
> 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? (030)
By reifying the contexts and stating their assumptions (postulates).
I would note that the ontology itself is an artifactual system and thus
has purposes, not just functions and capabilities. (031)
Cyc uses the predicate #$domain assertions for this purpose: (032)
"(domainAssumptions MT PROP) means that the microtheory MT
has the proposition PROP as a domain assumption, which means
that all assertions explicitly made in MT assume that PROP is true. (033)
For example,
(domainAssumptions ChristianTrinityMt
(equals JesusChrist GodTheSon)). " (034)
-- doug f (035)
> 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 <mailto:abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "We've learned that our companies, our cities and our
>>>> world are complex systems-indeed, systems of systems":
>>>>
>http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/overview/ideas/index.html?lnk=ussph2.12
>>>> I still wonder if we have developed the distinction
>>>> criteria for the complex systems and the systems of systems.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* joseph simpson <mailto:jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> *To:* Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
>>>> <mailto:ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> *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
>>>> <mailto: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 -----
>>>> *From:* joseph simpson
>>>> <mailto:jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> *To:* Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
>>>> <mailto:ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> *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 <mailto: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
>>>> <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
>>>> <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
>>>> <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/
> (036)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (037)
|