These confusions stem from the pervasive misconception that "system" points to
what a thing IS rather than what a thing DOES. Once you understand the Does
then system IS the thing that satisfies (or not) Role.
On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Matthew K. Hettinger wrote: (01)
> Doug,
>
> DF:"I distinguish "Purpose" with an intent, while restricting "Function" to
>capabilities."
>
> So, the purpose of a system is *not* what is does (or can do). Yes? I happen
>to agree with this, however, some explicitly define the purpose of a system by
>what it does.
>
> If the above is true then I'm not sure what you mean by "...... then the
>question of "Purpose" need not be asked." Because as I see, the question of
>intent is very important. Did I miss something?
>
> Intent may be associated with probabilities and expectations, just like
>roles, IMHO. So there is a probability that a system will satisfy intent and
>fulfill its purpose, by the actions it takes, by what it does (by, in part,
>fulfilling its' role). In this way, the concepts of purpose and role can be
>related.
>
> I like to make a further distinction with respect to "function"/"capability".
>There are those "functions", "behaviors", "capabilities" within a system
>boundary, and those external to that same system boundary. In general the term
>'capability' may refer to external "functions", operations on the environment.
>That is, the term is used from a given perspective. In a SoS, what is internal
>and what is external is relative.
>
>
> It looks like I'm getting digests, I'll have to change my settings to make my
>contributions more timely.
>
>
> Matthew K. Hettinger, Enterprise Architect and Systemist
> Mathet Consulting, Inc.
>
>
> On 2/11/2012 10:41 AM, Mike Bennett wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> On 08/02/2012 18:59, doug foxvog wrote:
>>> On Tue, February 7, 2012 13:20 Mike Bennett<mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> That is a good approach, and admirably demonstrated in the Cyc
>> examples below.
>>
>> The question, from a Quality Assurance point of view, is how does
>> one ensure that thse distinctions are consistently made by modelers?
>>
>>> 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.
>> Indeed. Given that Cyc has the cability of asserting functions
>> with or without intent, how does one ensure that modelers of new
>> material do not bring their inbuilt (and perhaps unquestioned /
>> unstated) philosophical issues along for the ride?
>>
>>> 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 #$intendedBehaviorCapable
>>> for such instances."
>> Interesting - I see this is the exact text from Cyc. Does this
>> mean that Cyc is agnostic as to which microtheories people
>> subscribe to, and allows them to model according to their own
>> microtheory? Would that not cause inconsistencies in the overall
>> model, or can the microtheories be recognized and clearly
>> partitioned as such? Are the microtheories of each part of the
>> model explicitly stated, and if so, in what form? (reading on, I
>> see this is answered at the very end of this email; more
>> generally then, I would ask this of any ontology other than Cyc).
>>
>>
>>> For systems engineering, the type-level functions seem important
>>> for describing both required roles for components and properties
>>> of parts considered for playing those roles, while the individual
>>> level functions describe whether a specific component is faulty.
>>>
>>> Here are the #$comments from OpenCyc for
>>> #$behaviorCapable:
>>> "The predicate behaviorCapable is used to indicate that an object (an
>>> instance of SomethingExisting) can play a role (an instance of
>>> BinaryRolePredicate) in a type of situation (a specialization of
>>> Situation). (behaviorCapable OBJ SIT-TYPE ROLE) means that OBJ is able to
>>> play ROLE in a situation of type SIT-TYPE. Note that OBJ may or may not
>>> have been designed to function in that way (see the specializations of
>>> behaviorCapable, primaryFunction and intendedBehaviorCapable). Moreover,
>>> unlike capableOf (q.v.), behaviorCapable does not imply that OBJ can
>>> unquestionably act in that way in every such situation, since extrinsic
>>> factors may prevent it from doing so; for example, if OBJ is a tool, it
>>> may be in the wrong location or operated by a person lacking the requisite
>>> skills. Examples: (intended capability) a hammer is behaviorCapable
>>> [should be intendedPrimaryFunction] of being the deviceUsed in instances
>>> of HammeringANail; (unintended capability) an inner tube is capable of
>>> being the deviceUsed in instances of people FloatingInLiquid."
>> Again it is clear that Cyc has put considerable thought into
>> these questions. Is this thinking formally set down somewhere
>> independently of these comments or are modelers expected to read
>> and absorb the required thinking from the comments? For
>> ontologies in general, how are these kinds of questions set out,
>> or is there a training requirement for all persons who are to
>> extend or adapt a given ontology, such that they must have
>> understood all the available predicates before attempting to add
>> anything to the model? I don't know if there are any good answers
>> to this but I think it's a point worth considering in any new
>> ontology project. It is also a point I am considering now in
>> relation to our FIBO ontology.
>>
>>> #$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."
>> "consider"? or "you shall use"? How does one ensure that the most
>> appropriate predicates are used in new material added to the
>> ontology? Again I raise this question generally, not just in
>> respect of Cyc.
>>
>> How does one ensure that new material added to an ontology makes
>> the most appropriate use of the predicates available?
>>
>>> #$intendedBehaviorCapable:
>>> "... (intendedBehaviorCapable ARTIFACT SITTYPE ROLE) means that (i)
>>> ARTIFACT can play ROLE in situations or events of type SITTYPE (see
>>> behaviorCapable) and (ii) ARTIFACT is intended by its designer to play
>>> ROLE in situations or events of type SITTYPE. Note that a given artifact
>>> can be intended to be capable of serving more than one function. ..."
>> As a matter of interest, do the "intended" predicates have some
>> link to the party or entity which is the "designer" i.e. that
>> which does the intending?
>>
>>> #$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:
>>>
>>> (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. ..."
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> I don't see this at all. Medical pathology describes functions, even
>>> though people may (imo sloppily) use terminology regarding purposes.
>> Well I could argue my corner in this but this is not really the
>> forum to resolve such issues. What interests me for the present
>> discussion is not the resolution of the question but the
>> existence of the question.
>>
>> However, you are right, a lot of this is to do with sloppy use of
>> terminology. Perhaps a clearer example is when biologists try to
>> explain things to a lay public and inevitably use terminology
>> which seems to imply that evolution is a directed force, when
>> they know and we know that it is not. Part of the problem there
>> is that our Western European languages have arisen in a somewhat
>> theistic environment and lack the vocabulary for concepts like
>> "the pressures to which this [thing/behavior] arose in response
>> are...". So we have to work with the languages we have.
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> 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
>> This distinction (very clearly articulated in Cyc) goes a long
>> way towards addressing the question.
>>
>>>> This leads to
>>>> absurdities like asking the logically inevitable question of
>>>> whether left-handedness is pathological.
>>> Hmm?
>>> "In medicine, the term pathological means relting to, involving or
>>> caused by disease."
>>> -- The Probert Encyclopaedia of Medicine
>>>
>>> "1. Of or relating to pathology.
>>> 2. Relating to or caused by disease."
>>> -- American Heritage Medical Dictionary
>>>
>>> "Disease related"
>>> -- Int'l Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
>>>
>>>
>>>> We all know it is not, but the logic in which pathology is framed
>>>> implies that it is.
>>> I'm not sure what definition of "pathological" you are referring to.
>>> It does not seem to fit under a standard medical definition.
>> Fair enough. I see that your definitions relate specifically to
>> disease and not to dysfunction more generally as I had always
>> assumed.
>>
>> Like I said, what interests me for the current discussion is the
>> ontology quality questions that arise from the possible existence
>> of different interpretive frameworks.
>>
>> For instance, suppose you have a team of people working on an
>> ontology that touches on concepts which include drugs, psychiatry
>> and so on. The question arises: "What are we to do about that
>> chap in Cubicle Three who believes that people should be able to
>> obtain whatever drugs they want without first having to have
>> something 'wrong' with them?"
>>
>> That is to say, there is someone working on the ontology who is
>> working from a different set of principles - a different
>> microtheory. Is this a personnel problem or a quality assurance
>> problem?
>>
>> I would argue that it should be possible to set out the
>> microtheory to which the ontology is to comply, and also
>> (standard QA again) to have mechanisms in place to ensure that
>> the output of anyone working on the project complies with that
>> microtheory. How is this best achieved?
>>
>> The question becomes further complicated if the development of
>> the ontology is an ongoing activity, with changes to be made
>> against tight time-scales. Then much of the QA has to happen
>> after the event, i.e. more of a "gardening" approach, where
>> someone has to go through material that has been created, and
>> ensure that it remains consistent with one single unifying theory
>> of the matter in the domain of discourse.
>>
>> This might be a very informal arrangement, but there needs to be
>> some process loop in place which ensures that consumers of the
>> ontology can have confidence that there are no odd surprises or
>> inconsistencies lurking within it. No doubt much of this can be
>> done with consistency checking. Can all of it? I don't know.
>> Again, something to think about.
>>
>> Let's take an example from my own area. There are people who have
>> come to the conclusion that all financial instruments can be
>> represented semantically simply as sets of cashflows. This is
>> true but incomplete in my view. Sometimes the "cashflow only"
>> modelers will end up modeling imaginary extra instruments which
>> make up the equivalent behavior of a discrete term in some
>> complex instrument (for example modeling a capped interest
>> payment term as an equivalent separate deal which yields the same
>> cashflow behavior in the portfolio of the holder). Cashflow is
>> one set of facts about an instrument, and one way of classifying
>> instruments. From a risk management point of view, different
>> facts about an instrument are more relevant and a different set
>> of classifications would be appropriate. For an ontology which
>> supports more than one business use case, we would need to model
>> all of these facts and each of these possible sets of
>> classification hierarchies.
>>
>> How then do we deal with ontology modelers who are convinced that
>> cashflow is the only thing? That is, how do we (a) communicate
>> the overall principles of our ontology, and (b) verify that they
>> have modeled according to those principles without bringing their
>> own microtheory to the table?
>>
>> I don't know the answers either. I hope this is a better example
>> of the problem I am trying to describe here.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> If you want to model it, model it in a social context. Such models are
>>> not needed, useful, or appropriate in a medical context.
>> Indeed. But where does the social context begin and end? In my
>> example of the troublemaker in Cubicle Three, I suspect there are
>> busines contexts in which his or her different outlook on the
>> world might impact some real ontology, for example in the
>> (social?) context of prescription.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> Agreed. If this can be formally recorded in some suitable way,
>> the problem is addressed.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> I think this is the key to the whole thing. This is a lot like
>> John Sowa's description of how to apply a high level lattice of
>> theories, such that the concepts in the lattice are
>> underspecified, and the narrower contexts introduce their own
>> views of the domain of discourse. (John, correct me if I have
>> mischaracterized this).
>>
>> I wonder also whether this approach can be employed when the
>> differences between approaches to ontology are more fundamental,
>> for example 4D versus the rest, or extensional versus intensional
>> approaches. But that is more about the approach to ontology than
>> about one's view of the world being modeled, so perhaps those are
>> separate questions.
>>
>> Again, what I'm curious about is what can be formally recorded
>> and defined, and how one is able to ensure that it is
>> consistently applied.
>>
>>>> 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?
>>> 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.
>> Agreed. I wonder what is the best way in which to state those
>> assumptions? Presumably at the top level of the ontology (or a
>> given branch of the ontology) itself?
>>
>> Good point about the purpose of the ontology. I think where this
>> becomes particularly important is when you are creating an
>> operational ontology for some specific application. This might
>> take a sub-set of some broader ontology which defines all the
>> business concepts but has too many different terms and
>> perspectives to make a practical, decidable ontology. Extracting
>> the sub-set of the ontology which is appropriate for a given
>> application, is driven by what is the business purpose of that
>> application (for instance you might extract only a single
>> taxonomic hierarchy out of an ontology which contains several; or
>> you may extract only those terms which are represented by
>> operational data and leave out those terms which are relative,
>> those which give legal grounding and meaning to the concepts but
>> have no data, and so on). But I digress.
>>
>>> Cyc uses the predicate #$domain assertions for this purpose:
>>>
>>> "(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.
>>>
>>> For example,
>>> (domainAssumptions ChristianTrinityMt
>>> (equals JesusChrist GodTheSon)). "
>> This is great. So there is a formal mechanism within Cyc, with
>> which to make explicit any number of domain-specific assertions
>> about the world?
>>
>> Would that other ontologies had this, or had some formal
>> requirement to make statements of this form. Otherwise I fear
>> that a lot of the stuff which has been thought about and made
>> specific in Cyc is not thought about and will not be made
>> specific in other ontologies. There is nothing in the ontology
>> languages themselves to make people do this, is there?
>>
>> As I think we can all agree, in any technical development project
>> it is the unspoken, undocumented and unquestioned assumptions
>> which will come back to bite us.
>>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>> -- doug f
>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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/ (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (03)
|