Perception: Geometric Sensory Scales

The following tables are something I have been playing with regarding sensory input, system international units, geometric scales and a consistent Latin terminology.  If some of the terms sound familiar it is because they are validly constructed Latin words.  The sensory system start at the top to bottom.  The scales start at the right to left. I think historically, such tables were created to create vocabulary.  The English language has abandoned this to its logical loss.  Double-click the table to see it on its own page.

giovio-geoveo-controls

giovio-gidovido-controls

Advertisements

The Zen of Systems and Networks

zencircle01

My own work with Enterprise Frameworks and Networks has led me to come up with the following table.  It describes the Nodes and Links in a Complete System Network.  I am saying that the Nodes representing Goals, People, Time, Locations, Code, Data, Qualities and Quantities can all be represented as Scale-free Networks and that each of these Node Networks require only one datatype.  I am also saying that there are only three types of links in networks: recursive links within a set, multiple links between sets, single links between sets.  I know of no case where this has been attempted in the manner I am attempting to represent it.

systemnetworkslinks1

If you have been following my blog you are aware that I have been struggling for a long time to come up with a framework and a clean terminological set to describe systems.  I think I have come one step closer to that goal today.  The table above describes a Fact composed of eight Nodes (first white row illustrating entities) and the Links (last three white rows illustrating recursive, multiple and singular relationships) for each of the System Networks (Interrogative columns).  One of the interesting aspects of this System Network Model is every Fact is composed of a Unique Set of all eight Nodes.  However, all the Nodes in one Fact do not have to have Links to all the Nodes in another Fact.  Each Node within a Fact is independent regarding its Links.  Therefore you have a single set of System Facts with each Fact containing a single set of Interrogative Nodes each connected by their respective Link Networks.

I have recently been writing with the intent to challenge centrism on any one of these networks and advocate a more integrated view. I still remember dealing with data centrism, event centrism, user centrism, goal centrism, program centrism and schedule centrism over the course of my career. All of them have a role to play. My insight into all of these Nouns being Linked by Verbs in only three ways required me to look at all of the Enterprise Architectures and disengtangle the Nouns, Links and Verbs from the reasoning and representations that extend back beyond computing itself.

The Data Model below is a hybrid of Relational Models and Dimensional Models.  I call this an Associational Model.  It is using Relational Architecture to represent it.  However, I think that an alternate Entity-Attribute-Value (EAV) architecture called the Associative Model of Data would be better suited to the task.  I am using relational representation as I am still trying to communicate with a community only familiar with Relational technology.

The first thing to note about this model is Links are represented by Associations.  Associations link two Nouns using a Verb.  What is interesting about this model is every Verb, Association, Noun and Fact is unique.  The vertical connections are Many to Many relationships which allow two vertically adjacent Verbs, Associations or Nouns to have multiple unique relationships between each other.  What this means is there are no integrity problems (duplicate values) as the system network would enforce uniqueness.

amdschema031

The premise of this model is that the Nodes are not dimensions at all.  I am rejecting the traditional concept of dimensionality instead I am saying that there are three dimensions of Links: recursive, multiple and singular.  All we perceive are Facts, Nodes and the Links between them.

So you could come away with the following Zen koan:

entity without entity,

source without source,

path without path,

target without target,

size without size,

dimension without dimension.

Design: Judean Framework and Czerepak Framework

judaismsymbol

Judaism’s “God’ Promise to Abram” is a thoroughly thought out system that addresses all the interrogatives. In this post I will give a brief elaboration of what I mean.

In my work with the Czerepak Framework I presented the following:

Trivergent Thinking

Freedom and Fiat

Divergent Thinkng

Future and Flow

Univergent Thinking

Function and Form

Convergent Thinking

Fruition and Fulfillment

Now, I am going to take the above structure and apply it to the Judean Framework, God’s Promise to Abram.  Let’s look at the passage as it is first:

Leave your country,
your people
and your father’s household
and go to the land I will show you
I will make you into a great nation
And I will bless you;
I will make your name great, and
You will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And whoever curses you I will curse;
And all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.

Now let’s reorder it according to the Czerepak Framework:

Trivergent Thinking

Freedom

I will make you into a great nation

Fiat

I will make your name great

Divergent Thinking

Future

go to the land I will show you

Flow

Leave your country,
your people
your father’s household

Univergent Thinking

Function

I will bless you;
You will be a blessing.

Form

I will bless those who bless you,
And whoever curses you I will curse;

Convergent Thinking

Fruition

will be blessed through you

Fulfillment

all peoples on earth

As you can see, although there some minor variation in order, there is a very solid correlation with the Czerepak Framework as a whole.  Whether it was a man called Abram or a collection of person’s who composed this promise, it is obvious that it is a complete system framework.

Links:

Systema: Six Interrogatives and Four Associations

enterpriseassociations2

Since I have been thinking about the dimensionality of Einstein’s universe and the associations within the six interrogatives, it has led me to wonder about how the two fit together.  I have expressed it in the above diagram.  The association types are the rows and the interrogatives the columns.  We immediately have four dimensions for each interrogative.  Food for thought as I think about my current reading on network theory.

This hearkens back to a model I did in June 2007:

enterprisehybrid

You can see by using an association table for each interrogative this model provides for all the possible associations within the ontology.  However, I do not think this model is complete.  I’ll discuss that a bit later.

Systema: Art and Method

I have been spending considerable time in the University of Notre Dame Latin English Dictionary this past week looking to refine my terminology for Systema. One of my discoveries is that “modus” is not a term for “method”, but “standard” such as “modus operandi” — “standard operation”. The actual word for method or skill is “ars” or “art”. Thus “Art of War”–Artis Armus–is synonymous to “Method of War” or “Skill of War”. Consequently, I will be referring to the How interrogative with the response as “Artus” not “Modus”. The six interrogatives and responses are as follows:

  1. Why – Causus – Cause
  2. Who – Ductus – Command
  3. How – Artus – Method
  4. What – Datus – Given
  5. When – Eventus – Result
  6. Where – Locus – Location

Interestingly enough, this fits very well into the Empirical Process. All that is left out is the conclusion. The conclusion determines “how much” the system corroborates (benefits) the cause.

7. How Much – Conclusus – Conclusion

Science: Some Constructive Criticism

Recently I received an email from a long time colleague who came across my blog. He’s a very bright chap, so I decided to share the content with you. However, I can’t leave his comments unaddressed consequently I have inserted my responses in the text. — relationary

Dear Grant,

I have a few comments for you regarding the blog. please take them as
constructive criticism. I am happy and inspired to see someone so
enthusiastic about uncovering and learning things, but I am also a bit
concerned for you that you may be spinning your wheels on something.

If this means I keep returning to basic principles, I’m guilty.

1. You mention that you agree that there “is no box” to think outside
of. Much of your blog is related to the six hats/coats system where you
attempt to come up with a very generic system of classification for many
different processes. I would say that in general, any system of
classification is really “a box” in itself. It has no predictive
abilities and does not simplify or explain the relationships between
things – it is a set of buckets that you come up with to group concepts
into. Systems of classification can be practical and useful, and can
help to uncover greater realizations, but they can also in a sense
create or reinforce a fixed way of explaining and thinking about things
(a box) and stifle innovation/creativity. Have you heard the saying that
some achieve impressive things because they are too ignorant, or have
not yet been told that they don’t have the ability to do it? A system of
classification tells you how the world is. It does not tell you how it
works, or tell you how to explore things.

Actually, the Six Hats, Six Coats model is a framework for analyzing or designing systems. The modeling techniques it is based on have predictive capabilities. However, I have taken the Six Hats, Six Coats concept and created a simple classification system as well. On this I agree, not everything will fit snugly, but it is a good starting point.

As an example, the common set of human races (black, white, spanish,
arab, chinese, oriental, etc..) is a system of classification, and a
very arbitrary one based on external appearance or cultural origins. It
can help us to understand certain types of things, but it causes
problems and limits the way people think about other people. I would say
that genetics and mapping the human genome is the real breakthrough that
will in the future allow us to truly explain (and control) why and how
life works and evolves. If I was you I’d strive to be the geneticist
rather than to spend time determining which buckets to categorize things
or people into.

In genetics we have four building blocks or monomers known as G A T and C. Billions of these make up DNA. In the same way the six interrogatives: why, who, how, what, where and when, are the building blocks of complex networks that comprise a computer system.

Humans have asked questions and tried to understand things for a long
time. The interrogatives are the linguistic basis as to how humans
investigate, ask, and describe things. The three fundamental units of
measurement can be used to describe all of the other units of
measurement. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but to me it is not a
huge discovery that most systems we already understand can be framed or
described in terms of the the interrogatives and basic units of measure
that we have. It’s kind of like saying “anything we currently know about
or understand can be explained with the terms we use to explain things.”
or like saying “I can express any whole number as a series of digits.”

The assertion I am making is many analysts and designers do not address all the interrogatives when they are working with a system and consequently they build a less than satisfactory product.


All 6 of your hat/coat concepts relate to how humans sense, express, or
understand the world around them. Because your system of classification
is based and trapped within the confines of how humans currently view
the world that is what makes the classification system a box. I believe
that Einstein, Newton and others all pushed outside of the known and
accepted world which is why they are recognized as discovering something
new and expanding our knowledge.

The thinkers referred to observed the universe around them and large amounts of historical observations and worked out a means to incorporate all the exceptions to the theories of their day by creating new theories. They did not expand our knowledge, they expanded our wisdom.

Your background is in databases/information systems. Maybe that is why
you are so interested in classifying things, but as a suggestion, maybe
it would be interesting to try to explore something that gives new
understanding. (I’m one to talk, I have a physics degree that I’ve done
very little with ;^)

Yes, I classify everything. That’s the reason I see that the six interrogatives hold all the key components of physics: cause, observer, energy, mass, space and time.

The concepts of time, space and mass each have their own related
interrogative as you point out. Why do people and things have two
similar but different interrogatives Who/What, but temperature and
emotion which are not tangible things share the interrogative with
physical things (We ask “What is the temperature”, “what is an
emotion”?) Why don’t we have a separate interrogative that begins with
wh for non-tangible things? (Whelt is the temperature? Whelt is your
emotional state? Whelt is the colour of the truck? What is that round
thing sitting on the chair?) It seems quite arbitrary to me, and
probably stems from human nature to frame things in terms of causes,
people, locations, things, and time. The set of interrogatives we have
are based on human nature, and culture not on some universal, basic or
complete set of interrogatives that exists. I’ve heard that some native
American languages do not have tenses. Are there other languages that
have missing or additional interrogatives in relation to English?

I am of the opinion that the six interrogatives are all that are needed. The complexity increases but the building blocks are always the six interrogatives.

2.You quote Einstein as:
Energy = Mass * Space / Time / Time

That is not correct in two different ways.

1st, Einstein was not the first one to say that Energy is expressed in
terms of mass, space and time. Einstein was the first to say that mass
and energy were convertible (or equivalent) between each other, and that
the relationship between the the mass and energy produced is E=mc^2.
Long before Einstein, physicists had defined the concept of energy, and
measured it in terms of mass*space*space/time/time.

Secondly, energy is expressed in units of “Mass * Space * Space / Time /
Time”.

E=force exerted over a distance = f * d = a mass accelerating over a
distance = m * a * d = m * d / t^2 * d = m * d * d / t / t.

Thank you for the correction. I have modified the relevant post.

Anyway, take care and hopefully all is well with you. Nice to stumble
across your blog and see an old face that I haven’t seen in a while.

Ciao,
Leon

Thanks again, my friend.

What’s Right with the Zachman Framework

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC – 531 BC)

I just finished reading Graeme Simsion’s article What’s Wrong With The Zachman Framework? and found his opinions to be quite shallow.  His opinions show a limited exposure to the basic interrogatives–only as John Zachman has portrayed them–and a lack of knowledge that every modeling language uses combinations of the interrogatives to convey meaning.  The interrogatives are rarely dealt with individually and even Zachman makes this mistake in his examples regarding the focuses.

First, Simsion attacks the limitation of six perspectives.  He advocates adding a volume and cost perspective to the interrogatives.  He doesn’t realize that volume and value are irrelevant because the six interrogatives are scalable.  Second, the architecture metaphor is challenged.  Simsion never abstracted Zachman’s model.  If he had he would realize that the architectural metaphor conceals what the six perspectives are actually about:  Entities, Relationships, Attributes, Constraints, Definitions and Manipulations.  Third, Simsion claims there is no evidence of the plausibility of the Zachman Framework.  He fails to recognize that every modeling system is using the interrogatives to only partial effect and deriving significant benefits in quantity and quality of product.  There at this time is no product that integrates all of the interrogatives in the Zachman Framework.  Simsion also criticizes the framework for his inability to incorporate object oriented projects into it.  The reason for this is because he doesn’t realize that objects must be treated as attributes not as entities as laid down by Chris Date in his Third Manifesto.

zachmanframeworkabstract03.jpg

The truth is the interrogatives have a foundation that goes back over three thousand years across every human culture.  A human system has six scalable characteristics:  Who, What, When, Where, How and Why.  A non-human system has four scalable characteristics:  What, When, Where and How.  I don’t recall anyone asking Einstein about Volume or Cost when he wrote E=mc².

Simsion’s article is a tribute to ignorance.  John Zachman’s interpretation only scratches the surface.