OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Musings on the fundamental nature of data
• To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 13:37:58 +0100

Kurt,
What a helpful and insightful post. Thank you.
For my own claa model itself is simply a mechanism for imposing a working order upon reality in order to manipulate that reality in some wayrification:-
with evolutionary systems, there are typically variables that can be maddeningly difficult to qualify, let alone quantify, in part because phase transitions in such systems are seldom discrete
The emphasis you are making is on a distinction between the linear and non-linear.
How ever some concepts are intrinsically difficult to delimit (at what point in cloud cover are we justified in saying it is cloudy?)
Whereas others we would apply all round, for instance water to an atom, molecule, the solid, liquid and gas. Concept use per se, and so certain forms of classification, does not seem to always hinge on the linear/non-linear distinction.
Modeling [this] requires a significant number of time dependent variables, and the solutions are almost always non-linear [as well].
Which, of course, is very complicated because the abstraction is not just sequence but must include a notion of time interval as a relative quantity (very difficult to establish in relation to thresholds I should think).
So here we are interested in when one thing ceases to continue to be that sort of 'thing' and starts to be another sort of 'thing'. It has undergone a transition, a non neutral translation.
a model itself is simply a mechanism for imposing a working order upon reality in order to manipulate that reality in some way
'working order' = enabler ([for a] individual or group of individuals) of deriving some benefit ([for a] individual or group of individuals). One could argue about this, but, ultimately, I would say it is always a group of individuals.
'benefit': this is the meatier and more difficult notion.
However, with digital convergence, increasingly each of these models is increasingly describing the same thing in different terms and dimensions. My primary goal is to transform these extant models into a more common one [sic]
An example of the more general problem of translation.
Taking this altogether, when do we know that two concepts are distinct, when they overlap and when they are coincident?
Identifying and modelling tipping points in the general case is very difficult. I wouldn't attempt it in my field*. But perhaps I should give it consideration?
Moreover, our judgements in this regard would depend on the purposes (the 'working order' in terms of benefit, again particularly difficult in my field) we aim for.

*I am a psychoanalyst with an interest in (apart from ontology modelling and semantic web + programming -:) ) different approaches to therapy, both those with which I broadly agree and those I do not.
Being concise about these (actually complex) issues can be very helpful to me.

Very best,

On 5 May 2013 19:49, Kurt Cagle wrote:
Tim,

Man-made domains have the benefit that the variables that affect these domains are usually reasonable transparent and discrete, whereas with evolutionary systems, there are typically variables that can be maddeningly difficult to qualify, let alone quantify, in part because phase transitions in such systems are seldom discrete. Health classification systems provide a good case in point - cancer is a systemic condition, there are many forms of cancer that present in different ways, and cancers of one type may induce cancers of another type, while there may be some cancers that would never occur if other types of cancer are present. Modeling this requires a significant number of time dependent variables, and the solutions are almost always non-linear as well.

Building an ontology then requires effectively identifying areas of consistent behavior within what is ultimately a piecewise discontinuous membrane. This is true for any system which incorporates non-linear phase transitions. The various phases of water, for instance, can be categorized only in those areas that are sufficiently far from a phase transition boundary (or that encompass just the phase transition boundary with recognition that this is a transitional state), as the physics at these boundaries gets non-linear. The characteristics of water at exactly 100 C are very different from those at 98 C or 102 C. I can be reasonably certain that the properties of liquid water will be consistent (i.e., continuous) over most of its range, I can be reasonably certain that the properties of steam will likewise be consistent. Boiling water at the transition threshold gets .. complicated, and modeling it becomes much harder because there are more external behaviors at work.

Roger,

Back to your original question - in a perfectly idealized world, the SME should be able to provide you with a model for replication within his domain of expertise, which may encompass two or more states that the model can be in, but because a model itself is simply a mechanism for imposing a working order upon reality in order to manipulate that reality in some way, different SMEs will perforce have different models. The welder may have particular insights into the characteristics of a metal at various phases - its plasticity, its brittleness, its heat dissipation envelope, but probably could not tell you the electrical characteristics of the materials he works with, because they are simply not relevant to his models. On the other hand, I'd be leery of giving most theoretical physicists a blow torch and ask them to weld together two pieces of metal.

This brings up a second point. The welder is not likely to retain the knowledge about the electrical characteristics of metals (this is a simplification, welders deal with highly volatile materials, so knowing which volatiles can be set off by a spark could be VERY important to them). The physicist, on the other hand, is probably not trying to learn about welding. He is only interested in the welder's model to the degree that it gives him insight into the model that he is building about the nature of metals at phase transition points. In effect he is receiving not a perfect rendition of the welder's model, but rather is transforming, via metaphor, the model that the welder has into his own model, conceptually connected in different ways.

I'm running into this issue now with Disney. The organization has multiple systems that evolved over time to facilitate very specific tasks, and as a consequence, the implicit models that these systems use are somewhat different. However, with digital convergence, increasingly each of these models is increasingly describing the same thing in different terms and dimensions. My primary goal is to transform these extant models into a more common one that nonetheless can support legacy systems (and models). Model transformation (call it a model tensor operation, as I think there's a lot of analogies between the two) plays a huge part in reconciling these systems. Capturing the time dependent nature of those models is another part of that puzzle - as Tim and Stephen both indicated, models evolve in response to business conditions (uncontrollable external stimulae).

It's one of the reasons I'm increasingly moving to semantic modeling, though I think even that's only a way point. Some assertions are only valid in the right context, which is principally but not exclusively a temporal function.

Kurt

Kurt Cagle
Invited Expert, XForms Working Group, W3C
Managing Editor, XMLToday.org
443-837-8725

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Timothy W. Cook wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:

>
> Assertion: The most fundamental issue with data exchange is:
>
>     What worldview do you want replicated?

I fully support this assertion.

In some (most?) domains though these are not static views.

Specifically in the domain of healthcare (ignoring the fact that
domain experts prefer you to just suck the knowledge from their
brain).  When dealing with the healthcare record of a single person
over their lifetime, it is vitally important to capture 'data' in the
context that it was created combining the ontological, temporal and
spatial contexts along with the data into an artifact that can be
called information. Static data models do not work in this environment
because not only does time pass, the patient changes and is in various
geographical contexts. The science changes as well.  You cannot
migrate the data into new ontological contexts and still have it be
valid as it was captured.
This has led to the multi-level modelling approach using a generic
reference model and domain models that can vary over time.

I'm sure this can be helpful to other domains but man made domains do
not seem to be as complex as evolutionary domains.  Evolution has had
millions of years to work on the models and they are designed to be as
complex as necessary whereas man made models are designed to be as
simple as possible.

--Tim

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS