The right modeling paradigm keeps the modeler concentrating on the relationship between reality and her/his (conceptual) representative information model.

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

 

Please note that, as a first departure, domains as also W3C still views them could be juxtaposed as phenomena in the sense of Bohr’s complementarity (more general, in the sense of situationism), subsequently optimizing the order of variety (which can done be gradually). It is an example of where Metapattern might come in. However, without the proper philosophical orientation, Metapattern, too, is completely useless.
As long as we don’t change paradigm, we are stopped dead. And changing paradigm is of course exactly what Bohr did. He abstained from ‘attacking’ the obstacle that everybody still believed that needed to be overcome.

in: note 53.8

 

The what- and how-approach may be coordinated through contextualism. Perhaps one day someone may think of another, better way, but for now I don’t know of any alternative. For a what- and a how-view can each (and together) only be applied without contradiction for a particular situation, and with the situation dimensioned so as to secure precision. I wouldn’t know what comes first. And I don’t believe it matters all that much. In interpretation it is ongoing.

in: note 53.13

 

Please view the ennead as a construction kit for children. You are supplied with nine types of building block, and you have whatever amount you want of blocks available of each type. For how blocks of different types may be, and may not be, connected the ennead serves as instruction manual. In fact, in practice you are limited to using building blocks from the ennead’s sign dimension. For you can only imagine corresponding structures along both the fact/behavior and the interpretant dimension (which cannot be grasped directly, as is generally accepted post-Kant). And that leaves you constructing, i.e., modelling, with … Metapattern.

in: note 56.24

 

Again, I am just trying to demonstrate that the answer always (!) lies in necessary and sufficient differentiation (and that is what Metapattern methodically supports). A great many of false starts awaits us before we might say that we have adequately solved this large-scale modeling puzzle. However, without trials and errors there is no way to discover what might actually work for such intriguing variety.

in: note 71.24

 

The more abstract, as types go, model […] avoids all that (but you have to use your imagination more to understand it; and at least for now especially refrain from objections of a technological, that is, software-engineering, nature).

in: note 71.36

 

Actually, the idea of so-called contextual differentiation is to make unambiguous structuring of data/information practically possible regardless of scale. So, by using properly Metapattern-modeled information resources, there are no unstructured data left to transform.
Of course, there will always be unstructured data. What you could to with Metapattern is to model a target structure.

in: note 71.40