soa-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[soa-forum] another thought ... and request for comments

To: Sandy Klausner <klausner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Service-Oriented Architecture CoP <soa-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: www@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pwerbos@xxxxxxx, Daniel S Levine <levine@xxxxxxx>
From: Paul Prueitt <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:46:48 -0600
Message-id: <6156626D-6391-4B59-95F9-8B36F005ABDA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cs at Cornell, please forward to Van Renesse

Sandy,  (please forward as you wish)  


The analogy to music is indeed appropriate as the composition of music involves a creative element which when missing in boring and flat.  Music was in fact a key to some logical work on Topic Maps, this work being originally called HyTime.  HyTime and Topic Maps can be contrasted with RDF and OWL.  

Market failure is an interesting topic that I am exploring in the context of a shift in paradigm, from first school to second school.  Perhaps it would be useful to talk about a paper on this


  I may try to communicate with the authors about how IT markets might be defined when there are very secure assertions in which developers interests are seen, operationally, as more important than consumers interests, thus creating a utility function that stabilizes an entrenched system that supports the income of developers, and only marginally addresses the needs of consumers.  (The Microsoft world is not the only example, open source follows a similar system nature).  

Dan,

Sandy's work can be seen at www.coretalk.com

The modeling that I would like to do has to do with self limitation, reflected in decision making, when there is an autopoietic envelop (Maturana's term) and a reinforcement mechanism such as career rewards.   The decision stream is defined as a stream of decision on which proposal is to be funded.  Decision makers are government program managers and venture capital firms.  

Suppose that two systems of thought co-exist.  (One thinks about Thomas Kuhn's work regarding paradigm shifts.)  The one system is created in such a way that the second system is inhibited by the success of the first system.  First order differential equations, often seen in even the simplest neural model, have on-center off-surround network.  In Levine and Prueitt (1989) (Levine, D. & Prueitt, P.S. (1989.) Modeling Some Effects of Frontal Lobe Damage - Novelty and Preservation, Neural Networks, 2, 103-116.)  we have a layer of input and a layer of output processing with a gated di-pole serving as the mediator.  So there was a reset for failure to fulfill a utility function.  This feature of our work provided an orienting feature where failure to match utility results in a new contextual search.  Frontal lobe mechanisms complete an biologically implemented architecture where by agility is supported so that orientation to novel stimulus over rides familiarity with past experiences.

Without this frontal lobe function, an autopoietic envelop might form whereby failure to fulfill utility function (human needs) is accommodated, and an "acquired inability" to make proper decisions is constructed as part of the systemic response mechanism.  If this is so, both VC groups and government programs might actually be incapable (now) of making decisions that shift the viewpoint from first to second school.  

One can see the arguments that support such acquired inability in the way almost everyone talks about style in presentation of innovation as having to address the known behavioral patterns of VC groups and government program managers.  (Send a request for papers on this subject to psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)  

The coreTalk design is essentially second school in nature, since it has a designed utility function directly corresponding to a future market in products and services that are NOT PROGRAMMER oriented.  

I have argued for many years that IT venture funding, and NSF, DARPA etc funding is focused on meeting the utility function defined by the IT industry, and not actually by the needs of government, intelligence, or the American public.

Thus, consistent with my theory, I see the first school is self defining and having an inability to recognize novel technology, ie innovation.  Using metaphor, I claim that the funding mechanisms have no frontal lobes.


I know of no way to introduce this complete issue, but feel that a neural model similar to our model of selective attention and orientation to novelly see in the 1989 paper might help.  Again, if the department of mathematics at UTA were to support a two year appointment, you and I could work out the details.  

The relationship to a model of self limitation seen in college freshman students has the same dynamic, so if we can develop these models we may find an ability to help innovations like coreTalk make the argument that a larger economic paradigm shift is possible.







On Dec 11, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Sandy Klausner wrote:

a.

Part of this effort is to dream up a credible domain that most people could relate and populate it with real topics and content. Are you a subscriber to rhapsody.com? This domain can easily be represented as a topic map and is rich in example topics and characteristics with obviously unlimited content. It is a use case of: Web site development and live navigation - present your graph and mashups to others.

Thoughts everyone?

Sandy

PS: Note the name of one of Enigma's Main Releases "A Posteriori" which is a useful philosophy term that deals with deductive and inductive reasoning that Cubicon agents will exhibit!

<rhapsody.tiff>

 _________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP    (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [soa-forum] another thought ... and request for comments, Paul Prueitt <=