single organizing system relation

1 view
Skip to first unread message

James Martin

unread,
Apr 8, 2015, 7:58:35 AM4/8/15
to SSWG
Joe,

I am curious to know more about what you mean by "single organizing system relation". It is not clear from what you wrote what this concept entails and how the concept would be used to achieve the benefits you claim. Can you describe this concept in layman's terms? Is there a good reference that describes this in more detail?

(I changed the title of this thread to pursue this topic separately from the thread on the systems philosophy workshop.)

When you say "classes with a single responsibility" do you mean a class that has a singular purpose rather than being multi-purpose? Or do you mean a class that is more 'atomic' in nature? Can you provide example classes of each kind (ie, some of the single responsibility kind and some of the multiple responsibility kind)?

Furthermore, perhaps you could say more about "concept of a single direct relation between logical antecedent and consequent elements". Examples?

To what do you refer when you say 'We will be covering these topics in our "Foundational Aspects of System Complexity Reduction" '? Is this a tutorial or a paper or a book?

All interesting ideas that you bring up. Seems important to understand how these can help us better understand the systems science underlying SE.

James


On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:16 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:
James:

Interesting activity.....

Our current work in complexity reduction has identified a set of common approaches across various disciplines.

A key concept associated with agile software design is the idea of classes with single responsibility.

Another key concept is the analysis of relative change and concept stability.

Similar to the idea of single responsibility, in software design, the concept of a single organizing system relation has been identified and articulated by system scientists.

Similar to single responsibility and a single organizing system relation, the concept of a single direct relation between logical antecedent and consequent elements has been identified by some system scientists and  engineers.

The concept of a 'single relation' appears to be at the foundation of many complexity reduction methods.

The application of the single relation concepts creates a loosely coupled system that supports the analysis and change of specific elements, under the correct conditions.  Further, these concepts support the creation of multiple integration and composition techniques based on the single relation elements.  

Empirical information and logical information about a single system may be encoded using these single relation elements.  The empirical information provides a basis to evaluate the probability of relative change in the system.  The logical information provides a basis to evaluate the system concept stability.

Many system approaches are created in a tightly bound manner that defeat efforts to clearly analyze the foundational components.

We will be covering these topics in our "Foundational Aspects of System Complexity Reduction."

System isomorphisms may be identified between and among these single relation system components.

The combination of these single relation elements may not have direct isomorphisms but the component elements may.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe





On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:34 PM, James Martin <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:
Our annual summer workshop will be held in conjunction with the INCOSE Symposium event held on July 13-16, 2015, in Seattle, Washington, USA. The Systems Science Workshop will be held on Saturday, July 11th at the Hyatt Regency Bellevue on Seattle's Eastside.

If you are attending the Symposium then the workshop will only cost an additional $10 to cover the cost of handouts. If you are only attending the workshop itself, then you will need to register for one day of the symposium. Symposium registration is now open at: http://events.incose.org/registrationFees

The workshop topic is "Systems Philosophy and its Relevance to SE". More details on the workshop can be found here: 

The workshop will explore how Systems Philosophy can be used to support expansion of the theoretical foundations of Systems Engineering (SE).   This workshop will provide an overview of our plans for work in this area and explore some of the challenges and opportunities of this project.

Systems Philosophy is a branch of philosophy concerned with developing a scientific worldview based on the systems paradigm.   The significance of this for SE is that the development of a systems-scientific worldview can be used to support the development of a General Systems Theory (GST).  GST is a theory encapsulating the objective principles underlying the behaviors that recur across multiple kinds of systems ("systemic isomorphies") and also the schema (‘gestalt’) that connects them.  The development of a fully-fledged GST should be a key ambition for SE, because SE does not have a unifying theory that can guide the further development of SE’s theoretical foundations in a principled way. 

The workshop will explore how Systems Philosophy can aid the development of GST, and how a GST can help unify and expand the theoretical foundations of SE.  Taken together, Systems Philosophy and GST can be used to develop a “General Systems Transdiscipline” (GSTD), which will greatly extend the capacity of SE to deal with complexity.

--
James

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to syss...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to syss...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
James

joseph simpson

unread,
Apr 8, 2015, 11:24:28 AM4/8/15
to Sys Sci
James:

Excellent questions..

Some quick answers:

What you mean by "single organizing system relation?"

A system is defined as a relationship mapped over a set of objects.  

Any group of objects may have a number of relationships mapped between and among the individual objects.

To clearly identify a specific system only one relationship should be mapped at a time, using a single organizing system relation.

The single organizing system relation principle is applied in the model-exchange isomorphism (MEI) and augmented model-exchange isomorphism concepts (AMEI).

For the MEI concept see:

In this case a binary relation is used. On page eight (8),  numbered as journal page 448, the model-exchange isomorphism is presented in detail.  The process starts with a mental model which is represented as data points.  The data points are converted to a reachability matrix.  The reachability matrix is converted to a directed graph.

For the AMEI concept see:
The AMEI adds prose versions of the logical properties associated with the single organizing system relation used by the MEI.


When you say "classes with a single responsibility" do you mean a class that has a singular purpose rather than being multi-purpose? 

I use the concept of "classes with a single responsibility" in the same sense as it is presented here:

and here:


Furthermore, perhaps you could say more about "concept of a single direct relation between logical antecedent and consequent elements". Examples?


The concept of a single direct relation between logical antecedent and consequent elements was articulated by William E. Combs in "The Combs Method For Rapid Inference."  The basic material and examples are provided at:


To what do you refer when you say 'We will be covering these topics in our "Foundational Aspects of System Complexity Reduction" '

The Foundational Aspects of System Complexity Reduction is a tutorial that we will be presenting at INCOSE 2015, it also a name of a paper we will be presenting at INCOSE 2015.

It seems that there is a common thread among these topics and examples.

In the case of the MEI and AMEI a single organizing relation is used to identify a specific system, thus reducing complexity by determining an organizing relationship that references all the objects.

In the case of classes with a single responsibility, the complexity associated with code reuse and software maintenance is reduced by isolating well defined behavior in a single software object.

In the case of the Combs method for rapid inference, the direct relation between the logical antecedent and the logical consequent elements reduces the uncertainty associated with multiple antecedent applications.

Hope this helps, let me know if you have any further questions.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages