Dear Chris, (01)
I wholeheartedly agree on the big picture idea, but offer an alternative
qualitative viewpoint concerning the underlying assumptions and implicit
notions that I conjecture may lead us astray in using these for certain
types of software systems design. My viewpoint is not a response to
your points and is rather off-axis but I wanted to contribute this
because I am increasingly convinced that we need some thinking about
other kinds of models (suggested later) as we develop forward. You wrote: (02)
>A good model theory for a language,
>especially a somewhat complex one like PSL or OWL (or one capable of
>some cute tricks like Common Logic), provides a very clear picture of
>the *structure* of the information described by the language. In PSL,
>for example, there are timepoints, objects, activity types, and activity
>occurrences. The model theory shows very trenchently how these four
>categories of thing fit together, especially with regard to activity
>types and activity tokens. Granted, lots of ordinary users and workaday
>ontologies won't much care about that if they've got a good process
>modeling tool, for example, but the underlying model theory is what
>makes such a tool possible, much like the underlying mathematics and
>engineering that makes a good calculator possible. (03)
I do not see these as broadly good models for business or human process
engineering (scenarios of human networks) because they do not enable
consistent reasoning from process models that depend upon ulterior or
negotiative or political factors and evidential, personal, or human
social processes: I contend that most approaches originating in
manufacturing (ex. PSL) and/or other systems that ignore the influential
value of soft-factors will treat human as a kind of "computer" in a kind
of extended "flowchart". In contrast, models that would center on
soft-factors, for example, would directly support such fundamental
notions like motives, intentions, purposes and goals that people might
bring to bear in carrying out a process (as in that a person plays the
role of a computational element within some process structure). The
hiccup occurs in trying to integrate organizational "context" (Argh!!!!)
in which processes are enacted by humans (Arghh, Argh!!!) and thereby
accommodate the processes's (aka "human") personalization i.e. how
people carrying out processes see (ie. personalize) these processes and
their components, in this way influence the outcomes. This may be one
reason why, when a process is designed, and humans are placed within,
that it more often than not fails because humans do not behave
predictably or in the restricted sets of rigid patterns the process
designer foresaw. The human being, unlike the cpu brings a hidden
agenda within a process (execution) context and I do not feel this fact
is fairly represented in the current available systems (certainly, it is
not in PSL at all). (04)
So, my alternative view is that there are no good process modeling tools
because they neglect the human being and treat the individual as a
computer (aka "brain as computer" analogy). The Brain as Computer
(Analogy) has, in my mind, two driving implications to the design of
good model theory to lay the foundation for a good tool: 1st Implication
: modern techniques are all derived from techniques for building
computer programs. For instance, we have flow-charts and data flow
diagrams. The model theory that is built into them is of a Process
Follower: the process enactor is given a script to follow and carries it
out. Within this, there is a 2nd Implication : People and other actors
carrying out a process are treated as a computer following a program,
which, of course, does not work in practice, so all the business process
modeling tools fail to adequately provide good process design (which is
still done on Whiteboard by executive management for success). (05)
My conjecture is to see if the notion of "mind as political system" is
perhaps a more useful fundamental starting point from which to design a
process model. Of course, I offer the work of Vygotsky ("Activity
Theory") to suggest further food for thought as an alternative place to
reposition from (ie. to take as a point of departure in devising the
underlying model theory). Therefore, without good model theory, no good
tools ... and I have yet to see any good tools ... perhaps I am missing out? (06)
I would be interested in your reactions to this and any thoughts you may
have about whether or not the soft factors are as important as I may,
perhaps even naively, feel that they are. (07)
Certainly, I am *not* claiming that this is the "truth" or that my
critique indicates an opposition to PSL and the other systems out there
--- I am merely trying to point to something that implicitly sits in
mind when trying to paint a clear picture of what exactly is the model
theory and its assumptions in the context of the real world, which is to
all intents and purposes, the world of human social interactions, be it
in business or in terrorism or in lounging about :) (08)
Thank you, (09)
Arun (010)
Chris Menzel wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:57:59PM -0400, John Sowa wrote:
>
>> Right. If you are able to find a model, the most you have
>> demonstrated is consistency.
>>
>
> Well, yeah, in and of itself, that's what the existence of a model gives
> you. But I'm wary of the implication here (?) that that is all that
> model theory is good for. A good model theory for a language,
> especially a somewhat complex one like PSL or OWL (or one capable of
> some cute tricks like Common Logic), provides a very clear picture of
> the *structure* of the information described by the language. In PSL,
> for example, there are timepoints, objects, activity types, and activity
> occurrences. The model theory shows very trenchently how these four
> categories of thing fit together, especially with regard to activity
> types and activity tokens. Granted, lots of ordinary users and workaday
> ontologies won't much care about that if they've got a good process
> modeling tool, for example, but the underlying model theory is what
> makes such a tool possible, much like the underlying mathematics and
> engineering that makes a good calculator possible.
>
>
>> I like this logic stuff, and I think it's valuable. But I really
>> can't blame people who say that model theory is rather pathetic as a
>> meaningful theory of meaning.
>>
>
> Well, blame is appropriate if their ignorance is culpable. :-) Granted,
> model theory is a mathematical theory of meaning for *formal* languages.
> But insofar as formal languages are idealizations of certain aspects of
> natural language, a good model theory can yield many deep insights into
> the nature of meaning even in natural language, especially the way that
> the meanings of complex epxressions depend upon the meanings of their
> component parts. It is also very illuminating vis-a-vis the meanings
> of, and semantic connections between, the logical constants
> (quantifiers, intensional operators, etc). But OF COURSE model theory
> isn't going to tell you much of anything about the "real world" meanings
> of the nonlogical expressions like "chair" or "person", let alone
> subtler senses of meaning deriving from perception and emotion. But to
> castigate model theory on those grounds is to miss the point badly.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki:
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
>
>
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (012)
|