Metapattern > modeling method/language for variety > across scales & scopes
Metapattern’s contextual turn [supports] unambiguous modeling […] across so-called universes of discourse (also read: communities of practice). Metapattern features a qualitatively enhanced, comprehensive order of integration, answering to practical requirements for authentic, reusable information resources to span people, organizations, processes, perspectives, etc.
in: On benefiting from Metapattern
Metapattern […] succeeds as the critical semantic technology by squarely leaving a minimalistic existential paradigm behind and adopting an open, relativistic behavioral paradigm.
in: Metapattern as situationist mereology
[W]ith Metapattern […] the structural nature has become a matter of principle.
in: Metapattern as context orientation: meeting Odell's challenge of object orientation
[M]etainformation is also modeled using Metapattern. Therefore, even types are dynamic. […] The relevant type, too, is determined as it existed, exists or will exist (and is/was registered as valid at that time). The explicit recognition of simultaneous and/or consecutive differences, even at the metalevel(s) of information, makes Metapattern eminently suited for gradual development and introduction of related information systems/sets/services.
in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection
Metapattern [is] a method for technology-driven empowerment of constructive differences, while actually enabling to better benefit from similarities, too. Needless duplication may be eliminated, short-circuiting at its origin the domino-effect of run-away cost of information management.
In Metapattern, context is an unambiguous variable (recursive: a function of relationship and object identity), which is the key (because object identities can be linked across contexts) to theoretically unlimited scope, practical compactness, flexibility, etcetera.
in: Notes on Metapattern, part 1
I'm not so much concerned with modeling situation. Instead, I
concentrate on modeling an object's behavior. Next, I recognize that a
particular object may exhibit several behaviors. This raises the
question of how a particular behavior is determined. [The] answer:
situation. So, [the] concept of situation has evolved from the
requirement for behavior selection. It only follows that I've
introduced the constraint that situations are disjunct. Otherwise,
behavior could not be unambiguously determined. For any object, there's
a 1:1 relationship between a particular situation and a particular
behavior. Or, given a situated object, its behavior is accurately
determined. In order to qualify as criterion for selection of behavior
— and now we're moving to the sign dimension — context need
only consist of a unique label. Combined with the object's unique
label, its so-called signature, intext can be retrieved.
Now that would already be enough when 'levels' were fixed. My analysis
of variety is that such levels are better assumed relative. In terms of
hierarchy, it means that you can move upwards and downwards. Upwards,
what was first taken as a situation as a whole, may turn out to be a
next-higher level object in a next-higher level situation. You can
repeat the procedure until you feel that you've reached a practical
limit, i.e. the behavioral horizon for, say, the ecosystem that you're
modeling. Downwards, the same principle applies. Now, what was first
taken as a behavior as a whole, may turn out to be a next-lower level
object with next-lower level behavior. Again, you can repeat the
procedure until you feel that you've reached a practical limit. In this
case, that is, downwards, what results are primitive chunks of
behavior. Please note that both the upward and downward limits of
decomposition remain relative. The structure is also variable at both
extremes. So, the horizon may be lifted and/or additional behavioral
detail added as primitive.
in: Notes on Metapattern and enneadic semiosis, part 2
Metapattern doesn't set primitives as an absolute limit. It is fundamentally open to continued conceptual decomposition[.]
in: On metapattern and other themes in information management
A characteristic feature is so-called contextual differentiation. Letting contexts determine differences should not be mistaken as Metapattern’s single feature, though. How Metapattern simultaneously establishes differences as coordinated is particularly novel, and powerful.
in: Get into the rhythm of Metapattern
This so-called upward decomposition toward the horizon continues until the model only contains nodes that represent situated objects.
in: Get into the rhythm of Metapattern
The conciseness of Metapattern’s regular modeling construct is precisely what makes possible combining them with unlimited variety. Whatever the scope of the configuration, every node carries an unambiguous meaning (concept).
in: Get into the rhythm of Metapattern
[S]hifting horizons annex levels for typing is open-ended in both directions, exemplifying Metapattern’s characteristic decompositions directed at specifying context, respectively behavior.
in: Perspectivism in federated practice
Metapattern aims at any practical scope. Soon the benefits become manifest of being prepared to revise ?presuppositions? for a particular model, too. It just may happen that including an additional behavior necessitates questioning how situations have so far been differentiated and/or what have so far been appointed objects.
in: Metapattern for complementarity modeling
A situated object, as its label indicates, participates in two so-called nestings. It takes part in both situation and object, with each in their turn a situated object, and so on. […] Where situation and object may no longer be distinguished, resides a horizon (and there nestings meet up again […]) .