Metapattern > information exchange engineering > critical expansion of scale & scope
With the Internet and related technologies, potentially the whole network is ‘the information system.’
in: note 23.1
Occupying an inclusive, expanded horizon leads to qualitative change. At the emerging scale of a civil informational infrastructure, varied interplay of difference and identity is actually characteristic.
The Internet paradigm implies the potential for infinite informational interconnectivity. In practice, it fast approaches a level of intensity, complexity etcetera where dedicated, say one-to-one, ad-hoc solutions hamper responsible usage and also further development.
Identity management in open societies requires a broader foundation.
in: Semiotics of identity management
As knowledge management advances to cover ever more complex human endeavors it inevitably needs to acknowledge the relevant distribution of perspectives among stakeholders.
in: Metapattern for converging knowledge management with artificial intelligence
The philosophical unification […], should […] especially suit the purpose of opening engagement with information systems to more encompassing perspectives.
All such assumptions are undermined when boundaries dissolve.
in: The ontological atom of behavior: toward a logic for information modeling beyond the classics
With a growing scope of information flows, by now practically having global reach, meaningful differences (and how they interrelate) should be paradigmatic, rather than assuming single, universally valid meanings. From this pluralist premise, infrastructure for information flows should critically facilitate conceptual variety.
in: Join Metapattern’s paradigm shift for your business model
With global scope of information exchange, there is no escaping accepting as reality both differences of meanings and (their) interdependence.
in: Get into the rhythm of Metapattern
Actually conflating information with object ‘means’ that information management may be reduced to … object management. You can see that happening all around. Concepts developed for material production etc. are uncritically applied to — designing, developing etc. — information systems. As long as an information system remains separate and ‘covers’ a very limited part of reality, not much can go wrong. It radically changes, though, as soon as the scope widens and behavioral differences need to be facilitated. The reductionist view of information immediately fails. Instead, a concept of information is required to accommodate both differences and dynamics.
in: note 47.18
It is a huge misunderstanding, and continued source of enormous waste, that productive development of information resources & services is welcomed as “pragmatic” when starting from the simple, gradually proceeding to the — increasingly real as — complex. On the contrary, missing out on real variety ‘simply’ means having to start all over again after failure, and again … At least the design should cover real variety; development/implementation may (then) occur in stages (with design remaining ‘open’ to learn from added experience).
in: note 53.6
[P]roblems arising from holding on to a limited epistemology et cetera are increasingly, at least, so it seems to me, staring us in the face. In am practically referring to the lack of equitable infrastructure for what has become known as information society. Such an infrastructure is effectively still lacking, as particular — business — interests are dominant. First of all policy makers should shift their paradigm.
in: note 53.9
Context disambiguates. It follows that necessary and sufficient context varies with scope. The children of a family are given different [— first [— names. For example a parent calling a child can do with that first name, only. For the child will recognize the voice as from one of his parents. In a classroom, children from different families come together. Addressing a pupil, the teacher may need more than just a first name (or more than just a last name, for that matter). Should combination of first and last name come out equal, yet another naming convention is in order. The purpose is precision of address. It makes the producer of a sign more certain about the compliance he aims to achieve when a particular subject should do the complying. Many governments are now identifying citizens with unique numbers, forgetting that across governments such a number alone no longer qualifies.
in: Analytic philosophy for synthesis from early education on
Immediately there is an instance where I struggle to find an equivalent term in English. Take system. With the term system available in Dutch, there does not seem to be a problem at all. However, in Dutch there is also a noun term, a luxury, for sure, and it reads stelsel, for something that is systematic at a yet larger, wider et cetera scope than … system. Not for want of searching, I still fail to find in English an appropriate single term referring to that concept. I could translate it, and have indeed done so, with system of systems. But that still considers the constituting systems as its unchanged and unchangeable parts. What is at stake, I find I better call an integrated order.
in: note 71.6
From the impossibility of conceptually separating domains, it follows we need a methodical approach to model — towards — integrated order, period. Preferably, a single modeling method is adequate to the task. And underlying such a method can only be an ontology in the philosophical sense.
in: note 71.13
Why does Metapattern, apart from a necessary boundary condition, that is, a horizon, provide just a single modeling construct type, i.e., contextual differentiation? The assumption is that there is no a priori limit to what requires differentiation. The construct type(s) must therefore be as free as possible from determination in order to optimally facilitate aiming at unambiguous actual constructs with modeling. And with what is not there, you also cannot go wrong.
in: note 71.23