I’m joining this thread a bit late. So I hope I don’t address things people have already commented on.
Concerning patterns, I’ve been recently looking at design patterns from the perspective of ontologies. Not necessarily system or software design patterns, but
general artifact design patterns.
I mentioned this a bit in the chat from last Thursday’s session. Maybe I can use a physical analogy.
Most ontologies of function describe classes such as dispositions, functions, realizations. Functions typically are associated with goals, e.g., the functional
goals of a clawhammer are: to pound a nail into something having a specific density or hardness or tensile strength range (not iron, e.g.), or to extract a nail from such a thing.
So a very simple design pattern may be like a rule:
Apply object X to object Y with instrument I so that X partiallyPenetrates Y.
Or more logically (I'm abstracting away from Force):
Exists X, Y, I, Hx, Hy, Hi: object(X), object(Y), instrument(I), hardness(I, Hi), hardness(X, Hx), hardness(Y, Hy), Hi >= Hx, Hx > Hy /\ apply(X, Y, I) -> partiallyPenetrates(X,
Y).
Or something similar.
It seems to me that something like the above is a more abstract design pattern that applies to clawhammers and many more artifacts. It also goes towards granularity,
obviously as abstraction always does. I.e., one can think about substituting various kinds of objects, hardness levels, etc., to satisfy the pattern. Sledge hammers pound certain items into particular materials. Screwdrivers push objects via rotation into
particular materials.
The goal might be for one object to partially penetrate another object. A more general pattern keeps that goal but broadens it. Hit X to Y to move Y. Croquet
or golf, etc. A more specific pattern: Hit X to Y when Y is held stationary, with such force that a back portion of Y ignites to propel a front portion of Y. A gun and bullet, with a slight modification, a rocket. Or perhaps a shift analogically to a social
organization ontology, and here is where metaphors help. Hit conservative-social-values to the electorate to move the electorate rightward into the nation-state’s governance.
Do we have system-level patterns along these lines AND along the types originally listed by Ali?
-
Modeling Patterns
-
Analysis Patterns
-
Problem Patterns
-
Codification Patterns
-
Transformation Patterns
A more complex design pattern, rather than just being a rule, is an ontology. I think Henson originally mentioned this. So perhaps there are levels of description/representation
in ontologies that correspond to abstraction, but consist of classes, properties, and rules (the latter is often over-looked) that represent a pattern.
Perhaps the hammer-pattern above is a Modeling Pattern? The inverse of a Problem Pattern, i.e., how do you get a nail into a board? Or how do you get a board
to attach securely to another board?
Perhaps an Analysis Pattern is: Invert the Problem Pattern to give you the initial Modeling Pattern? Glueing is a solution because it binds 2 objects; what
else binds two objects? Some other material that doesn’t just bind their surfaces, but penetrates them and that binds them? I can even consider a mereotopological approach: either a straddling of 2 parts with a 3rd part providing the binding, i.e.,
a tangent or a 2-dimensional boundary solution. Or a solution in which a 3rd part becomes part of both the first part and the second part 3-dimensionally, i.e., a 3-dimensional boundary solution.
“Every part is either a boundary or an interior part or the union of a boundary and an interior part (where the disjunctions are of course exclusive).” [From B.
Smith, 1996. Mereotopology: A theory of parts and boundaries. Data
&
Knowledge Engineering 20 (1996) 287-303.]
Perhaps the analogical reasoning mentioned above is an example of a Transformation Pattern: take the original pattern and substitute different classes and see
what the pattern means in that domain? Or go from so-called bona fide boundaries to fiat boundaries.
Just thoughts.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew K. Hettinger
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:55 PM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] OS-2012 Problem Space
Ali's comment below provides a nice opportunity to make people aware of
another summit that is tentatively scheduled to begin in Aug.
(I normally would not make a post of this nature in the context of a summit.
However, because of the significant overlap and a commitment to sharing the
results of that summit with participants of this summit, I trust most people
will find it relevant and not too intrusive.)
Ali: "I don't think we'll be able to define "Systems" or "System of Systems" satisfactorily for all
communities in this summit. In one of the earlier chats, ChrisWelty suggested that we simply enumerate
the systems we're addressing. I think that's too coarse. What I would suggest is that for each
participant to articulate their background assumptions for the salient features of their systems.
That is, for each of the systems that participants bring to the table, we should try to systematically
capture their salient characteristics and features. Indeed, I would suggest that this is the interface
that links systems between each of the communities."
-------------
For the past 6 years the International Conference on Enterprises as Systems:
Theory and Theory in Action has been concerned with the treatment of (networked)
enterprises *as* systems in constantly changing social, economic, legal and
technical environments. It has been held (with varying degrees of success) with
the intent to create an environment for the collaborative exchange of knowledge
among and between the Systemics Community, the Systems Architecture and Engineering
Community, and communities that are concerned with any aspect/part or whole of
(inter-, intra-) enterprise systems and enterprises *as* systems. Ontology
has been a standing topic.
This year, to further the collaboration effort, a(n) (Networked)Enterprises *as*
Systems Summit will be held in conjunction with the conference. Common threads
for both the summit and conference include:
(1) (networked)enterprises *as* systems in the (general) systems-theoretic sense
(systemics and the systems family of disciplines)
(2) identifying and characterizing problems and potential solutions to which
systemics may contribute to any aspect/part of (inter-, intra-) enterprise systems and
enterprises *as* systems
(3) the formal and/or empirical representation of such systems for description,
explanation, simulation and prediction (formal / empirical theory)
(4) the use/application of theory in analysis / design, architecture / engineering,
strategy, tactics, and operation of (inter-, intra-) enterprise systems and enterprises
*as* systems
An enterprise may be considered a business, government organization, educational organization,
standards body, community of practice, a country, a federation, a group of enterprises bound
by law in some fashion, any group of cooperating / collaborating enterprises such as those in
GRID systems and emergency management/response systems, etc. etc.
This exchange of knowledge and collaboration among participants/communities will contribute to
the formation of an open (inter- and intra-)enterprise *as* systems discipline, utilizing,
merging, and applying principles, concepts and theories from a number of disciplines/communities
that include, *but is not limited to*:
Systemics and Systems Analysis/Eng. (Inter- Intra-) Enterprise-related Disciplines
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Systems Theory Computer and Information Science and Technology
Systems Theory Finance, Economics and Accounting (Value)
Systems-of-Systems Law, Rules and Constraints
Adaptive Systems Semiotics, Ontology and Language (Meaning)
Evolutionary Systems Action and Behavior (Process, Activities, Tasks, Events, Projects)
Systems Dynamics Communication(s)
Systems Thinking Quality, Measures and Metrics
Cybernetics Integration and Interoperability
Artificial Intelligence Knowledge, Information and Data
Systems Engineering (Cyber-)Security
Systems Analysis Heuristics, Algorithms and Computation
Control Systems Cognition, Reasoning, Intelligence, Learning (e.g. Decisions and Decision Making, Agents)
Decision Theory Risk, Trust, Obligations, Responsibilities, Consequences
Learning Systems Technology
Complex Systems Business
Organization Theory Model-Based, Enterprise, Software, Manufactured Systems, Service Oriented, etc. Arch./Eng.
Autopoiesis Cooperation/Collaboration/Competition
Allopoiesis
Autonomy
Social Systems
Context Theory
Concepts and theories from other disciplines that may also be used include, for example, Neural Networks,
Genetic Algorithms, Ecology, (Behavioral) Psychology
The distinction between the summit and conference is that a summit organization committee, with input from
interested individuals/organizations, will determine the summit tracks, the summit schedule, duration, etc.
The conference (and workshop) will focus primarily on a special topic and individuals will submit contributions
for consideration. It is tentatively planned for the conference to kick-off the summit the first week in Aug.
The summit will be virtual.
Summit planning is in the early stages. If anyone has any comments/questions, or if any person or organization is interested
in planning the *summit* please contact me **privately**: information [at] enterprisesystemtheory [dot] net or
mkhettinger [at] mathet [dot] com
Matthew K Hettinger