It’s all very well to refer to postmodernism or whatever, but of course precision is required for reliable computerized information systems. Now with interconnectivity, there’s actually no limit to what could, respectively should count as a system. Accordingly, a qualitatively different modeling method is required. Without it, it simply doesn’t work.

in: note 23.9

 

It certainly is how I view Metapattern, that is, as a language without qualities. […] It’s precisely because [it] radically disincorporate[s] qualities […] that such [a] nil-language […]  afford[s] powerful synthesis of expression.

in: On "nil" modality and Metapattern

 

Metapattern was indeed developed for the purpose of dealing with behavioral multiplicity while maintaining precision in information management.

in: Metapattern of natural complexes: enlisting Justus Buchler's metaphysics for informational infrastructure

 

Metapattern’s micro perspective allows real-world differences in behavior to be specified with ultimate precision [at macro scale]. After all, a particular context does not remain outside an information model (which, by applying such a procedure, is always relative as a whole). Context according to Metapattern is a variable to be valued within conceptual information models. It leads to the same information model to be able to support a great variety of contexts or, rather, context instances.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

[B]ehavior may even be typed at the extreme of singular nodes, the equivalent of each node having a singular context. More precision in differentiating behavior cannot possibly be supported.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

Intext holds the description of the behavior of an object’s partial identity in its corresponding context .

in: Metapattern as context orientation: meeting Odell's challenge of object orientation

 

The state of an overall object—with an overall object’s skeleton consisting of all nodes pointing to the same nil identity—is the collection of all object-part states. The question: is there any practical relevance in considering the overall object’s state? A good reason must exist to differentiate behavior. This leads to contextual states which (precisely because contexts are supposed to be disjunct) are largely independent.

in: Metapattern as context orientation: meeting Odell's challenge of object orientation

 

[H]ow to reconcile the […] irrefutable facts of identity and difference? I have removed the status of logical atom from the instance (object etc). In a situational approach to information modeling there are still logical atoms, though. As atomic counts an instance's behavior as preconditioned (also read: precoordinated) through a situation. In addition, situation, object (also read: instance) and behavior have become relative.

in: What is an instance in information modeling?

 

 

With its structuralist (as opposed to positivist) foundation, Metapattern offers great precision for conceptual modeling.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

Any view of information is dependent on a particular point of view. As point of view changes, so do the contents of context and intext. Metapattern can therefore be considered an exhaustive procedure to assign a unique identity to every single point of view. […] With each and every (possible) point of view uniquely accessible, precision of behavior differentiation is optimized.

in: The pattern of metapattern: ontological formalization of context and time for open interconnection

 

Metapattern gives every single element control over keeping its proper place in a structure, rather than have a separate control object dictate structure. So, what seems anarchy is actually the precondition for order, while a cramped desire for order can only lead to anarchy.

in: Notes on Metapattern and enneadic semiosis, part 1

 

Please note that 'situated behavior' implies juxtaposing such behaviors (perspective of difference) for one and the same ´entity’ (perspective of identity). So, it is not only contexts that are explicitly expressed inside the model, but as a consequence a reconciliation between difference and identity also finds expression inside (!) the model.

in: Notes on Metapattern and enneadic semiosis, part 2

 

[T]he semiotic ennead […] helps to distinguish, for example, between situation and context. Correspondingly, behavior and concept are different ... concepts.
Then, behavior concerns an object's specific situatedness, whereas intext reflects a sign's specific contextuality. […] Mixing dimensions of object and sign muddles information processing.

in: note 23.19

 

What makes a particular object’s behavior unambiguous is a particular situation. Then, given a situation and an object, they may be related as to yield the situated object with its specific behavior[.]

in: Open conceptual modeling with Metapattern

 

[O]rienting an object’s behavior through situation rather than at one or more other objects directly introduces an explicit invariant regarding all the objects involved. It is what makes Metapattern flexible, indifferent to modeling scope (also read: universe of discourse) and therefore more realistic.

in: Modifying Object-Role Modeling into Situated-Object-Behavior Modeling with Metapattern

 

As a matter of separation of concerns, in this case avoiding redundancy, such common behavior should be uniquely positioned, too.

in: Perspectivism in federated practice

 

Knowledge is never complete. As a situation for specific behavior can also be specified in more detail, odds are that incompleteness involves less risk. Situation should not be confused with scale, or scope. For some behavior, a ‘large’ situation may already be sufficiently specific.

in: Metapattern for complementarity modeling

 

Upward differentiation (also read: decomposition) may sound paradoxical, at first. In fact, strictly from a first order perspective, and the one-sided conceptual hierarchy its entails, it is nonsense. The first order many is positioned at the bottom; through — subsequent steps of — abstraction, one is supposed to result. […] Characteristically, at least, that is my suggestion, the one of second order resides at the — metaphorical — bottom. There, behavior is not ambiguous, i.e. singular: one. The determinants of such behavior, though, are many. This plentitude may be conceived through — subsequent steps of — specification under the headings of a constituent situation and a constituent object. A horizon as boundary value summarizes this many of second order as … one, allowing for iterating […] between second and first order perspectives (and expressing results in a single overview, i.e. model) .

in: Invitation to contextualism

 

[T]he, let’s call it, modeling method/language for the purpose of flexibility is minimalist on metaconcepts. In other words, it is completely up to [the designer] to decide on relevant — variety of — concepts, and their interdependency. Of course, leaving it to a dogmatic modeler you’d still be in deep trouble.

in: note 53.15

 

[D]eveloping a structured view of the world takes more that assuming a set of worlds with each filled with objects as if they were atoms within that scope. Rather, its different behaviors establish situationally partial objects. What constitutes, then, some situation? And in, say, the other direction, what constitutes some behavior? I would say, more situationally partial objects in all directions. In the direction of situation a limit must be set: horizon. Ever more detailed [— specification of [— behavior may be left open. [Metapattern provides] schematic formalization of recursion, including cascading nil-identities.

in: Analytic philosophy for synthesis from early education on

 

A subject, that is, ‘something’ equipped with cognitive capacity, entertains motives. Through a focus, and in so-called Gestalt fashion, a motive is the necessary background for a concept, which is irreducibly foregrounded. Through a concept that is motivationally differentiated, a subject can behave in a situationally differentiated manner. As Peirce suggests, a sign mediates between a subject’s motivated concept and situated behavior. If so, a sign must be differentiated accordingly. And that is what Metapattern helps to express methodically at any scale. (Historically, I thought of such a modeling method first, to supply it only later with an appropriate theory. Isn’t that how innovations works? Idea first, rationalization after.)
A model is a sign. So, a model doesn’t include purposes. Or motives, for that matter. It can only include descriptions of purposes and/or motives. As such, they appear as contexts.
Now, the purpose :-) with Metapattern is to eliminate “overlapping contexts.” For it is only without overlap, that a subject’s (also read: an object’s) situated behaviors — or motivated concepts — can be taken for unambiguous descriptions (vice versa).

in: note 71.20