Sunday, February 19, 2006
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
n-articulated ontological
framework
Link back to part of the “solution” to translations between
RDF / OWL and Models of Information
à- [167]
Concurrent Anticipatory web discussion à [30]
Discussion about the depth of OWL indexes à [181]
Ecological Function, categorical closure - and "Rosen's" relational entailment
We were researching a recent suggestion on the Rosen list,
I naturally looked first at Bob Ulanowicz's well known
work, and came across a recent discussion
http://fis.icts.sbg.ac.at/mailings/2006.html
http://fis.icts.sbg.ac.at/mailings/2007.html
etc
between Igor Matutinovic, Loet Leydesdorff and Bob
Ulanowicz
We invite them to this discussion regarding Robert Rosen's
contribution to complexity science and natural systems.
At the link above, Bob Ulanowicz states a discussion with
"Let us assume that economies have two basic dimensions of
internal order: one is organic and relates to functional and structural
properties, which have their analogue in other living systems like
ecosystems; and the other is cognitive, meaning that a broad
perspective of the world that human agents hold streamlines collective
behavior and economic activities. Both dimensions of order are
maintained by dissipating the fabric of the natural environment. These
dimensions are dynamic and the change in their internal parameters
reflects on the scale and intensity of the interference with natural
structures and processes. "
I am going to assume that all three scholars have both an understanding of Rosen’s literature and the issues that are raised IF one pursues the formalist agenda to the limit, as is done in the excellent recant paper by the Chilean group (Letelier et al).
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/rosen.pdf
regarding organizational invariance and metabolic closure.
(So would there be a difference in the formalism IF we
were talking about the closure of any natural category formation,
such as in ecological systems, psychological systems, gene expression, quantum
or string expression?)
Paul Werbos? Might
you take time to make an extended comment?
John Sowa?
Others?
The paper makes an important advance that I, and others,
are applying to the design of gene, cell and social expression ontology, such
as the BioPAX ontology and ontology for web service administration (OASIS FERA
and ebSOA-IM models).
HOWEVER, in my opinion (and I think also in Judith Rosen's
opinion) the work by Letelier deeply misinterprets some aspects of the core
concepts expressed in the vast literature by Rosen and some of his students.
The quote from Letelier
"Thus, Rosen's basic construction behind his central result could
be extended to an infinite chain to define limiting objects with interesting
properties for the study of circularity.
Surprisingly, it seems that Rosen, starting from a biological insight,
was the first to notice how to define this type of mathematical object. ... and then Letelier cites some unpublished
work.
Why do I feel that the theoretical economist should be able to see
1) the advance that is coming with respect of Semantic Web based web services (to economies)
2) the failures of the mainstream to see the limitations of approaches made by Letelier and others
I ask this question, rhetorically.