Metapattern > information exchange engineering > interdependent variety
[T]he need for dynamics of information objects, between contexts and in time, has been Metapattern’s primary source of inspiration.
in: Metapattern as context orientation: meeting Odell's challenge of object orientation
As the horizon for such integration widens, and of course that is precisely what we’re not only witnessing but actively contributing to, a rigorous method to structurally determine and subsequently control informational differences and similarities soon, very soon, becomes a necessity.
[I]t’s the coordination of differences that’s productive. Optimization of value chains requires precisely balanced differences, rather than enforced identity in the sense of similarity, uniformity etcetera.
in: Do you run an ERP software company?
[I]t must be recognized that inherent variety can never, not anymore at the exploding scale of boundless connectivity, be simply standardized away.
Social complexity demands a comprehensive, productive theory should guide the practice of identity management.
in: Semiotics of identity management
When behaviors change, their alliance with object and/or situations may have to be adjusted, with objects and situations added as required. Only by providing flexibility for not just variety but for variety-in-flux is a modeling method up to the task of supporting the open information space of the network society.
in: Open conceptual modeling with Metapattern
[T]he proper scale of semantics in our age of instant interconnection includes structural variability. Again simply put, meanings change. So they should for a dynamic, vital society (also read, ultimately: global community). That's how I mean 'open.' Predetermination of all meanings is not just illusory, it is utterly foolish to even attempt it.
in: note 47.4
I had become most intrigued by [Peirce’s] statement that a sign “stands for [an] object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground of the [sign].” Now to me, including ground would simply mean that semiosis goes beyond a triad just consisting of sign, object and interpretant. As I subsequently couldn’t find any clue with Peirce, or anywhere else then and since, for that matter, where precisely to position ground, I worked out alternatives for myself. […] Preferring being on the safe side, I finally decided not to choose between alternatives, but to fit each and every element of the triad with its separate ground, thus explicitly differentiating the concept accordingly and establishing variety of correspondence (which Peirce in my view had not done yet). Anyway, I now had a hexad. I was not satisfied, though, with how those six elements provided for dynamics of semiosis. Something like hinges was still missing. It is probably where my most-forgotten education as an engineer and mathematician nevertheless kicked in. For that … purpose I added another three elements [to arrive at a] semiotic ennead. The three elements of the original triad (Peirce) have turned into dimensions, with three elements along each such dimension: nine elements all together. In hindsight I find it obvious that such a system of nine elements offers greatly increased explanatory power.
in: note 56.17
[S]uch concepts are traditionally left implicit — and habitually even unconsciously so — for a traditional application (also read: information system) meant for separate operation. From identification of the application it is — supposed to be — clear what concept the codes entail. When there were no means to interconnect computers, no reproachable neglect was committed. All that has changed, to put it mildly. […] When ‘mixing’ information from several applications, the implicit context for — the meaning of — codes provided by actually using a particular application, rather than any other, has been removed. At their encompassing scale, the relevant context should now be made explicit. […] Their integrated order only takes — please note, in this overspeculative example — one added concept for necessary and sufficient disambiguation.
in: note 71.6
Overall interconnection requires the shift to an integrated order of information, with priority of attention to the — even dynamic — variety of meanings. Only such an integrated order provides the setting for programming (and not the other way around).
in: note 71.40