[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Title: Message
You
said it: an evolvable system can accrete new features, although I am
uncertain if novelty is required.
However, to be evolution in the strictest sense, it must be a feature
which subsequent copies or inheritors
of the
system propagate. I'll call that 'viability' meaning this is a feature
that will cause this system
to be
selected more often than siblings/versions without it,and therefore
increases the frequency of
occurrence of the system. Evolution deals with populations.
One should also point out as Jarron
Lanier
has, the time scale over which biological evolution works. Anyway, let me
pose the following
qualties because they characterize control types:
1. Random evolution: a feature is added by a mistake.
May be viable.
2. Directed evolution: a feature is added by
intension. Is viable or else is a mistake.
3. Emergence: a feature is added by a coupling of intensions
and/or mistakes. Is viable by definition.
BTW: have you considered
o what happens if one routes values to the frequency and occurrence
indicators of
a schema or a schema of
schemas?
o that your *related to* is a typed URI to a resource and you are
delving into Page Rank as a
selector for services?
len
The ability of a system to
dynamically adapt and evolve to support capabilities that were never imagined
by the system designers ... ah, now that's what I want out of a
system!
So, why do I ask [about the distinction
between extensible versus evolvable]? Answer: I want us to
(colllectively) identify the fundamental differences and characteristics of an
extensible system versus an evolvable system.
Comments?
| 