When designs and artifacts are not assessed as Fit For Purpose ---

[Jack Ring]

At IW15 Bill Miller and I posted a draft Quad Chart recommending renewed vigilance on V&V of systems from Day 2 of the development project through Year N of the operational life. 

This excerpt from NDIA’s National Defense Magazine describes a clear and present situation that probably could have been avoided and, paraphrasing Einstein, 'will require new kinds of thinking than was used to cause this problem.’ 

Comments welcome. 

Are we ready to put Zero-faults into the System Engineering dialog?

F-35 Maintenance Software Comes Under Fire

National Defense - 4/24/2015
 

By Sandra I. Erwin 

The subpar performance of the F-35 logistics information system has been a concern for years. But it has now drawn the attention of key lawmakers who got an earful from Joint Strike Fighter maintenance crews during a recent visit to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. 

"The committee received numerous complaints and concerns by F-35 maintenance and operational personnel regarding the limitations, poor performance, poor design, and overall unsuitability of the ALIS software in its current form," said the House Armed Services Committee's subcommittee on tactical air and land forces in its markup of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. 

ALIS is the autonomic logistics information system that is hooked up to each F-35 to monitor every component of the aircraft and to alert operators of any breakdowns. The complaints heard by members of Congress range from the user-unfriendliness of the software and how slowly it responds to queries, to the high frequency of false alarms. 

Military aviation experts said some of these issues are temporary and should be expected in new programs. Glitches like too many false alarms should be solved over time as the technology matures. Other shortcomings of the system appear to be more substantial and might take years to fix. 

The F-35 program office and prime contractor Lockheed Martin assert that many of the current deficiencies will be plugged in future software releases. Program Executive Officer Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan traveled to Eglin this week to personally investigate the issues raised by the committee. "A lot of attention is being paid to ALIS," said F-35 spokesman Joe DellaVedova. 

By Bogdan's own account, the system will have to dig itself out of a deep hole. "ALIS has a long way to go," he told subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio. "It is a complicated, five million lines of code piece of equipment that we started treating like a piece of support equipment. It's not. It's an integral part of the weapon system." 

A major effort began two years to "change fundamentally the way we develop ALIS," Bogdan said. "We've applied the same techniques we used in developing software on the airplane to now developing software in ALIS. It's just going to take us some time to realize those results." 

One of ALIS' most vaunted features -- the ability to predict when a component will fail and will need to be replaced -- appears to be nowhere close to coming to fruition. According to sources close to the program, ALIS doesn't have enough of the data that would allow maintainers to forecast part failures based on how components are used and how they perform in flight. It is not clear when the prognostics capability will work. 

A significant concern for the Marine Corps -- the first service scheduled to deploy the F-35 -- is that ALIS is too incomplete for operational use, which means that a lot of the information crews will need to fix and maintain the aircraft will not be available so they will depend on remote tech support from Lockheed Martin technicians in Fort Worth, Texas. Experts said that process could end up being time consuming and increase aircraft downtime. 

ALIS was conceived so that when maintainers have to remove an aircraft part and replace it, they would have easy and instant access to instructions and drawings. ALIS also would help them interpret any failure codes that come off the aircraft and determine what procedures to employ. 

The Marine Corps will be the first service to deploy the short-takeoff vertical landing version of the F-35 later this year, and it has chosen to declare the airplane operational even with a less-than-optimal ALIS system. Maintenance crews aboard big-deck amphibious ships will be dependent on technical support from Texas if ALIS is unable to provide the information they need. 

Software engineers at Lockheed Martin are rushing to deliver ALIS upgrades to the F-35 fleet, said Sharon Parsley, spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training. 

"The F-35 military services understand that ALIS will continue to gain capability along with each release of block software on our newest aircraft," she told National Defense in a statement. 

Parsley said the Eglin maintainers who gave ALIS bad reviews were using the earliest versions, known as Block 1B and 2A. The jets that are now flying at two bases in Arizona -- Luke Air Force Base and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma -- have the latest version of software called 2B. 

A new update, ALIS 2.0.0, was delivered to F-35 locations, including Eglin in March, she said. "We expect many of the issues the airmen there are experiencing to improve." Two other releases currently are in development, ALIS 2.0.1 and 2.0.2. The full ALIS capability is due in 2017, said Parsley, "in line with the conclusion of the F-35 system development and demonstration program phase." 

An underlying question is whether the Marines will be able to get by with the 2.0.1 version of ALIS that still lacks the capability to manage life-limited parts. That feature is expected in ALIS 2.0.2, which is the version that the Air Force needs in order to declare its F-35A operational next year. 

The software eventually will have to undergo rigorous tests in combat-like conditions by the Pentagon's independent test and evaluation office. Operational tests of the Marine Corps' Block 2B mission software, along with ALIS, were supposed to take place a year ago but were delayed. Testers still do not believe the system is ready, and Pentagon procurement officials agreed. 

Turner's language in the NDAA, meanwhile, could mean yet another probe of ALIS, this one by the Government Accountability Office. The scrutiny will persist, especially in light of the feedback lawmakers got at Eglin. The frustration that members saw in F-35 maintainers is likely to stick with them as such interactions tend to be rare. 

During an April 14 subcommittee hearing, Turner said he was "taken aback" by the operators' critiques of ALIS. "I was also shocked that there's no spell check," he said. That means users have to manually identify misspelling and correct errors, which causes delays and potentially could put lives at risk. Crews also were unhappy with the reporting system for the availability of parts or status of the inventory. 

Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a former military aviator, said she, too, was alarmed by what she heard. Her impression was that the system is very labor intensive, slow to respond, and too bulky for use on ships. Duckworth said it was "troubling" that aircraft crews aboard ships at sea will have to reach back to Fort Worth for logistical support. 

Bogdan agreed that the transportability of ALIS is a major issue. "Today ALIS sits in a squadron and it's a rack of computers that weighs probably 800 to 1,000 pounds," he told Duckworth. "We recognized a year-and-a-half ago that was not going to work for deploying forces." Lockheed is designing a deployable version that will be ready for the Marine Corps in July, he said. It is a two-man portable system made up of three or four different racks. 

In the future, Bogdan said, ALIS will be made in a deployable configuration. "We will get rid of the old thousand-pound racks that we have at the squadrons now." 

ALIS is now deployed with more than a hundred operational F-35s from the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands. 

Contact writer Sandra Erwin at 703-247-2543 or ser...@ndia.org. 

[joseph simpson]

This story sounds about right.

Many large organizations, systems and value sets are involved.

The supporting base (computing system) technology has changed since this specific program was initiated. 

Large scale integration continues with the recognition that logistics is part of the system.

New technology, new approaches, everyone is learning.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
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

[Jorg Largent]

It appears that this is similar to Obamacare and again we are hearing from some in the software community an echo of Nancy Pelosi's comment: we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it -- a comment attributed to stool specimens as well.  Other quotes include one from a frustrated avionics engineer to the Flight Test engineer who was asked to load the new software: "you don't need to know what's in it."  Or, when asked to explain what it looked like when it operated properly in flight, "I'll know it when I see it," even though the software engineer was not going to be in the airplane.

OBTW, for us old desert rats, what is the difference between "Zero-faults" and "zero defects?"

Jorg

---

From: jri...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:42:19 -0700
Subject: [SysSciWG] When designs and artifacts are not assessed as Fit For Purpose ---
To: syss...@googlegroups.com; Fellows...@incose.org; william...@incose.org

[Jack Ring]

Thanks for the interest.

Zero-faults is a weak attempt at avoiding the all-too-common, negative visceral reaction to Zero-defects.  

Further, Zero-defects refers to conformance to all requirements whereas Zero-faults seeks conformance to Fit-4-Purpose requirements which may not be as robust a set. For example Fit-4-Purpose may not demand parsimony.

Jack

[Janet Singer]

Jack,

Can you clarify the distinction you are making here between 1) 'all requirements' and 2) 'Fit-4-Purpose requirements'?

Isn't fitness for purpose in the anticipated operational context the ultimate effect motivating adoption of all the requirements – at least those which are functionally significant?

If so, in what sense could set (2) be not as 'robust' as set (1)? 

Not sure if it is your intention to make the claim, but a formal specification of such a set relationship would be interesting.

Janet

[Jack Ring]

Thanks, Janet, after replying to jorg I realized that my distinctions may not be clear.

Any system that can respond to more than one kind of stimuli has multiple ‘personalities’ not all of which may be necessary for any given stimulus. In software it is the 'alternate entrances’ notion. In the F35 case it is the variety of missions, expected context factors, etc.  

In the full sense of meeting requirements this means that an instance would have to conform to the full set. 

In the sense of being Fit For Purpose the system must be able, when and while needed, to respond to only the intended stimuli/environment.

This applies to modes of operation as well. For a training run the fit for purpose configuration differs from the operational mode configuration. Also, in the test and evaluation world where 40% of the money and time is wasted awaiting bug fixes one should make sure the system under test and the test system are both bug free — fit for the purpose of discovering their dynamic limits.

Make sense?

Jack

[Gerhard Chroust]

With respect to the Fit4purpose I like the way ISO 9126 defined key requirements: 

effectiveness:

The capability of the software product to enable users to achieve specified goals with accuracy and

completeness:

in a specified context of use.

productivity:  

The capability of the software product to enable users to expend appropriate amounts of resources

in relation to the effectiveness achieved

in a specified context of use.

safety:  

The capability of the software product to achieve acceptable levels of risk of harm to people, business,

software, property or the environment

in a specified context of use.

satisfaction:  

The capability of the software product to satisfy users in a specified context of use.

[ISO9126-99] ISO/IEC FDIS 9126-1 Software Engineering - Product Quality
- Part I: Quality Model Techn. Report , Internat. Org. for Standardization,
ISO (1999).

ALWAY: "in a specified context of use".

best regards

gerhard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Chroust
J. Kepler University Linz
c/o Donaustr. 101/6,
A-2346 Maria Enzersdorf, Austria
+43 664 28 29 978
Gerhard...@jku.at

www.gerhard-chroust.at

>>> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> 28.04.2015 02:40 >>>

[Jack Ring]

Thank you for this. It highlights the difference between a software perspective vs. a system perspective.

A software view is limited to 'capability to enable users’ as contrasted to actual effects wrought by or influenced by the system.

A system view includes what the users do.

Does ISO 9126 acknowledge Operational Availability? We must be able to cause or influence the effects only ‘when and while needed.’

Does ‘specified context of user' mean only what the user is trying to do or what the user should be trying to do (where do you allocate user goal-setting error?)

Jack

Jack

Jorg

National Defense - 4/24/2015
<Mail Attachment.jpeg> 

[joseph simpson]

Interesting set of ideas..

The value of software is greatly reduced when it is separated from the hardware that will execute the software.

Any evaluation of an operational software system should include the operational constraints imposed by the system hardware configuration.

There have been cases where the acquired software performed all the required functions in a given hardware context.  The only problem was the hardware required to properly execute the software greatly exceeded the space, weight and power technical budgets for the system.

In other cases the software performed all functions and executed properly on the hardware but the system architecture did not conform to the restrictions on information flow and distribution.  A distributed system architecture was needed, a centralized architecture was delivered.

Fit for purpose is an interesting concept.

Take care, be god to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Gerhard Chroust]

Dear Jack!

thanks for asking back. My diagram contained only a tiny bit of thinking and defining around quality (quality in use').

The cited ISO 9126 is the OLD norm, which from year  2000 onward was gradually  replaced by the ISO/IEC 25000

family which is a set of at least 10 documents (and still counting).

 

ISO distinguished (and this is still  true in ISO/IEC 25000) between quality ('per se') and 'in use',

see attached 3 pdf-pictures. ("I91226...".

 

Each of the categories has many sub-categories  and this set is somewhat in flux, subcategories sometimes even moved to other categories.

 

The last pdf (i25020lf2.pdf) is taken from the 2007- 25010 draft standard to show that the basic thinking still applies, but changes are still being done.

 

Another range definitions of quality comes from the automotive teams:

see

chroust-schoitsch-08.pdf, attached

 

Perhaps this helped to clarify (or confuse) the issues.

best regards

gerhard

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Chroust
J. Kepler University Linz
c/o Donaustr. 101/6,
A-2346 Maria Enzersdorf, Austria
+43 664 28 29 978
Gerhard...@jku.at

www.gerhard-chroust.at

>>> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> 28.04.2015 16:44 >>>

[Jack Ring]

The situation can be parsed to advantage. 

System principles of dynamic and integrity limits come first. 

We can assess the integrity of software as is by proofreading all the code involved. The question is: For this desired post-condition is the weakest precondition valid --- are progress properties and safety properties satisfied throughout all the code, i.e., several hundred or thousand programs, including DBMS programs? A NO highlights a logic, arithmetic or semantic fault as well as the specific instruction at fault.

Assessing the dynamic limits requires execution (or emulation) on a selected platform.

[Gerhard Chroust]

Even if we could test all the code - we still have the non-functional requirements (reliability, usability, ..) which cannot be

judges only by reading code.

And most of the ugly mistakes appear 'at the interfaces' - different assumption about some data, e.g. - see to ill-fated Mars-Mariner spaceship.

gerhard

 

 

---------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Chroust
J. Kepler University Linz
c/o Donaustr. 101/6,
A-2346 Maria Enzersdorf, Austria
+43 664 28 29 978
Gerhard...@jku.at

www.gerhard-chroust.at

>>> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> 28.04.2015 20:07 >>>

[Jack Ring]

Hi, Gerhard,

Ooops. chroust-schoitsch-08.pdf not attached.

If you take quality to mean conformance to requirements then all we are saying is that Purpose may be all the requirements or only a subset depending on the effects to be caused or influenced.

I am surprised at the Reliability and Maintainability breakout in 25000 because Operational Availability, AsubO, was defined as the key parameter consisting of the compound of Reliability and Maintainability more than 50 years ago.

Some organizations may OpAvail a factor in Effectiveness while others make it parallel.

What shall INCOSE and ISSS make it?

<i25010lf2.pdf><i9126lf2.pdf><i9126qiub.pdf><i9126attr.pdf>

[Jack Ring]

Reading the code reads all the code involved in the progress properties and safety properties for any given post-condition. Examines all the interfaces. May involve hundreds to thousands of programs. That’s why being able to read 100MBytes/second is handy.

The focus is on system integrity, not dynamics. Once the code is fault free then tests can discover the dynamic limits and can do so without 40% of test time and budgets being wasted awaiting fixes for bugs.

Jack

[Michael Singer]

Food for thought regarding compliance with specifications vs. fitness for purpose:

"In the recent case in the English High Court of MT Hojgaard v E. ON1, it was held that a fitness for purpose obligation in a construction contract overrode an obligation to comply with the contract specification. …

The background to the case was the production in 2004 by DNV, a certification agency, of an international standard for the design of offshore wind turbines and grouted connections. It is now known that one of the equations in the standard was calculated incorrectly but this was not known to the claimant Contractor's designers when they carried out their design in 2006/7. …

The effective result of this case is that, at least in terms of the fitness for purpose obligation, the Contractor bore the risk that the standard might contain an error and its failure to provide the applicable design life could not be excused by an argument that it relied on the standard quoted in the contract. Whilst these circumstances may be relatively unusual, they do indicate the problems that may arise where a contractor tenders on the basis of a free-standing obligation to achieve fitness for purpose even though there may also be an obligation to comply with detailed specifications using the application of reasonable care and skill.

http://sites.herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/6452/landing-pages/newsletter-64---june-2014--e-.pdf

Michael

[Gerhard Chroust]

Dear Michael!

quite right - there are numerous jokes about fulfilling a requirement and ignoring the fitness for purpose:

A short one: "How can I have a green garden all year round?" - "Seal it with concrete and paint it green!" ...

 

I shows that certain basic 'fitness for purpose" needs are to be understood from the context .

(did you check the contract for the car you bought, that is has a motor (of some kind) ...

gerhard

 

 

---------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Chroust
J. Kepler University Linz
c/o Donaustr. 101/6,
A-2346 Maria Enzersdorf, Austria
+43 664 28 29 978
Gerhard...@jku.at

www.gerhard-chroust.at

>>> Michael Singer <michaelj...@gmail.com> 29.04.2015 09:49 >>>

[Gerhard Chroust]

Dear Jack! thanks for pointing out the omission
.

I am sorry! The "chroust-schoitsch-08.pdf," was not attached

Here is it.

gerhard 

 

Original email: "Re: Antw: Re: [SysSciWG] When designs and artifacts are not assessed as Fit For Purpose ---"
from Gerhard Chroust , dated 28.04.2015 17:59:09

[Jack Ring]

Yes, courts can be wrong, too.

[Jack Ring]

Gerhard,

TKU for this insight. I realize that you two were simply reporting on the terms in use and not championing any. FWIW I am aghast at the jibberish. What a mess. 

A clear case for a system ontology and system design and architecting ontology.

Jack

--
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.

<chroust-schoitsch-08.pdf>

[Janet Singer]

But Jack, why would SEs engage in critical philosophical thinking to clarify concepts and terminology in an ontology when an acclaimed physicist has pronounced that "philosophy is dead"?

If science can now resolve all questions previously addressed by philosophy, what is the 'scientific ontology' that Gerhard should have used to define the terms?

Janet

[Gerhard Chroust]

yes, quite right, and I am not sure whether the terminology still holds (
it is 5 years old!)

gerhard

 

---------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Chroust
J. Kepler University Linz
c/o Donaustr. 101/6,
A-2346 Maria Enzersdorf, Austria
+43 664 28 29 978
Gerhard...@jku.at

www.gerhard-chroust.at

>>> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> 29.04.2015 17:42 >>>
Gerhard,

[Jack Ring]

Janet,

Once you understand that a) there is no such thing as an SE, only a person who engages in SE, b) the construction of an ontology is not "critical philosophical thinking” but simply agreement on what interpretants to use for which concepts, c) what an acclaimed physicist claims is an opinion pending completion of the experiments he cited to advance his opinion to fact, d) there is no such thing a ‘science’ only the practice of the scientific method and those who don’t shall not be called scientists or presumed to be performing science, e) ‘scientific ontology’ is specious then you will understand that “Gerhard should have used to define terms’ is meaningless.

Onward,

Jack

[joseph simpson]

All of human understanding is limited.

The attached paper by John Sowa address concepts associated with systems, ontology, and science.

The leading quote from Whitehead is given below:

Systems, scientific and philosophic, come and go. Each method of limited understanding is at length exhausted. In its prime each system is a triumphant success: in its decay it is an obstructive nuisance.

Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas 

The techniques used in the 1940's to analyze, design and operate communication systems would not generate systems that are fit for service in the current system context and user expectation.

A central key idea infuses all system creation tasks. This idea balances value generation and risk acceptance.  New values and information make previous practices and systems a poor value.

An adaptable systems ontology would be a great step forward.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Janet Singer]

Jack,

What's an 'interpretant'?

That sounds like a term from philosophy.
Janet

[Jack Ring]

Perhaps there are no limits to human understanding (Language and Human Behavior, Bickerton, Derek, U. of Washington Press, 1995) only resistance.

John Sowa was kind enough to address our SysSciWG session a couple of years ago and is keen on fostering shared understanding, not necessarily standardized understanding.

Sharing is captured by Prof. Derek Cabrera’s system notion #4 — perspective.

Let’s proceed.

Jack

> <signproc.pdf>

[Jack Ring]

Janet, 

A red octagon at a road intersection is an interpretant for the concept also known as STOP (another interpretant).

Peircean language. However Charlie was not an “organizer of sophistry,” He was a pragmatic thinker about what works. 

Jack

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

Are you suggesting that there is a relationship between Cabrera's DSRP theory and Sowa's four separate hierarchies?

if so, what might that relationship be?

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Jack Ring]

No. Only that we need to use Perspective to align respective views of ontologies.

[Janet Singer]

Jack,

You said that construction of an ontology is

simply agreement on what interpretants to use for which concepts

and then gave an example where the concept was itself an interpretant.

You think getting agreement on what interpretants to use for which interpretants is simple?

Janet

[Jack Ring]

Janet, 

I am unaware of any example wherein the concept was itself an interpretant. In the first place, until telepathy, the concept can’t be used, period. Pls cite the example so clarification can set in.

Jack

[Richard Martin]

Jack,

 

Are you using the term interpretant in the same way described on the C. S. Pierce Wikipedia site topic of Signs? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce about half way down the page.)

 

Cheers,

Richard

--

[Gerhard Chroust]

Dear Janet! just a side remark.

building an ontology is not 'simply' but a very high-intelligent task - and unfortunately ontologies age and have to be rejuvenate!

gerhard

 

---------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Chroust
J. Kepler University Linz
c/o Donaustr. 101/6,
A-2346 Maria Enzersdorf, Austria
+43 664 28 29 978
Gerhard...@jku.at

www.gerhard-chroust.at

>>> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> 30.04.2015 16:08 >>>
Janet, 

[Jack Ring]

Richard, 

Thank you mucho for catching this. In fact, I have been using the term in the reverse of Pierce which is my error. 

The red octagonal thing is a sign which effect is the interpretant, STOP, in the ladder of inference.

Jack

[Janet Singer]

Jack,

Can you please revisit and clarify your assertion that

the construction of an ontology is not "critical philosophical thinking” but simply agreement on what interpretants to use for which concepts.

Janet

[Janet Singer]

BTW, Jack, I think ontology construction is best seen as an engineering activity by specific people creating a specific artifact for a specific purpose in a specific context of use.

I disagree that this can be done successfully without using 'thought experiment and argument' methods to disambiguate terminology, identify hidden assumptions, speculate on the strengths and limitations of proposed conceptual foundations, etc.:  i.e., without doing philosophy.

The quality of such activity suffers if one starts from scratch as if no one has made such attempts before, rather than building on lessons learned by others.

As Charles Sanders Peirce argued, what is needed is 'laboratory-philosophy' rather than 'seminary-philosophy'. Your quote from Hawking on philosophy being dead could be a constructive contribution  if it is interpreted as applying to the latter alone, but it is simply ignorant if applied to the former as well. 

(I imagine Hawking is not aware of the distinction and only had the latter in mind.)

Janet

[Jack Ring]

The “philosophy is dead” phrase was not introduced by me. And I have no opinion about Hawking’s perspective.

From the several year attempt at an Upper Ontology by several academics and practitioners who concluded that such notion was not achievable and recommended instead a set of domain-specific ontologies with an interoperability mechanism, I suggest we think of the various instruments in an orchestra with their respective attributes then notice that any system challenge will require a selection of the necessary and sufficient ones along with a score (notation system) which each can interpret.

Whether laboratory or seminary is irrelevant.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Sure.

the construction of an ontology is not "critical philosophical thinking” but simply agreement on what signs/symbols to use for which concepts.

The construction of an ontology to which diverse parties can relate will entail featuring synonyms or equivalent ordered sets of signs.

For example, the ordering of OpAvail, Reliability, Maintainability, Logistics Responsiveness, Readiness Confirmation, Recovery and Restart, will differ from domain to domain.

[Janet Singer]

Jack,

How can you say

The “philosophy is dead” phrase was not introduced by me. And I have no opinion about Hawking’s perspective.

when

On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: For those dedicated to citing systems science pioneers

"Philosophy is Dead…" Stephen Hawking says, in his book The Grand Design p.5… noting "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments on science, particularly physics.”

Did someone highjack your account?

Janet

[Jack Ring]

No one highjacked my account. 

I did not introduce the phrase, Steve Hawking did. 

On April 3, I introduced the notion that those dedicated to citing SS pioneers might want to rummage on Hawking’s view.

[Janet Singer]

Jack,

1) Are you saying that considering Hawking’s off-hand statement in a popular book is more productive than considering insights into philosophy deemed important by pioneers like Warfield, Wiener, Korzybski – or John Sowa?

2) When I described an interpretation of Hawking’s statement I could agree with, you did not respond to my points. Why would you introduce Hawking’s statement here if you didn’t want to learn from discussing it?

3) Why do you post to SSWG if not to engage in collegial discussion where we all might end up learning more together than we would on our own?

Janet

[Jack Ring]

Janet,

Why do you ask?

FWIW, I participate in SysSciWG for the 15% who a) are real world system practitioners (run-break-fix-learn) and b) apply the scientific method to ALL their theories. 

I did not respond to your points because I am not interested in discussing laboratory philosophy vs. seminary philosophy nor any other kind of sophistry. Too many system problems that need attention. I posted Hawking’s statement for those who would rather have collegial discussions about philosophy than about systems.

OBTW, Warfield, Weiner, Korsybski and Sowa had/have insights into systems, not philosophy.

Onward,

Jack

[Gerhard Chroust]

Dear all!

Lets get back to the issues at hand and lets not argue about  a word or two.

The advantage of this type of e-mail discussion to me is the spontaneity which obviously (and we have seen this) sometimes creates a rash/ not fully thought through/incomplete statements.  (some time ago I even left out a 'not' in my contribution - causing quite some misunderstandings).

 

What I would like to add to the kernel of our discussion is, that even the best thought-through ontology is a child of its time and environment and is thus up to change (we all know this from structuring our computer directories  which shows many properties and problems of ontology) since our ability to look into the future (?!) is very small.

gerhard

 

---------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Chroust
J. Kepler University Linz
c/o Donaustr. 101/6,
A-2346 Maria Enzersdorf, Austria
+43 664 28 29 978
Gerhard...@jku.at

www.gerhard-chroust.at

>>> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> 01.05.2015 03:46 >>>
Janet,

[Jack Ring]

Yea, verily. 

Because an ontology is simply a declaration by an observer of what (seems to) exist then that declaration may change as the observer’s ladder of inference (or equivalent) changes, the thing being observed or envisioned changes or as a result of a negotiation between two or more observers each having diverse perspectives. It is not an ontology that is important. What’s important in the interoperability of two or more ontologies.

Jack

[Janet Singer]

You are very patient and forgiving, Gerhard!

In many discussion forums a person who referred to writing offered by another as 'jibberish' and 'a mess' would be banned for failing to meet minimal community standards.

Janet

[Jack Ring]

And in many forums there are always a few who self-appoint as ‘hall monitors” rather than address the real issues.

Let’s not lose awareness of Gerhard’s point that there is rarely AN ontology but only the current version of an ontology and even then more than one ontology.