Please note that every single node immediately implies a full [semiotic] ennead.

in: Notes on Metapattern and enneadic semiosis, part 2

 

The particular node determines two things: what counts as instance (being the particular node itself); and which relationships and other nodes constitute its type.

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

 

As a tool for ontological engineers, Metapattern demonstrates three essential characteristics: 1. Context is a structural concept. […] 2. Time is factored at every meaningful node. […] 3. Validity is factored at every meaningful node.

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

 

[L]aterally connected nodes establish and maintain "unification" while every node taken as a separate point of departure allows for unambiguous "distinction."

in: Victoria Welby's significs meets the semiotic ennead

 

A signature itself does not carry information except for leading to an intext as a particular context directs, vice versa.

in: Metapattern: information modeling as enneadic dynamics

 

Literally through the concept of signature, context and intext become concepts that are (more) independent from each other. For how instances of context relate to instances of intext can always change around signatures. This explains the modeling power of […] Metapattern.

in: Metapattern: information modeling as enneadic dynamics

 

A […] notion which might appear counter-intuitive is that the node representing the nil identity has hardly any need for properties. Some reflection will make this clear as an overall object only “works” through its identities in (other) contexts.

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

 

[A]n overall object’s set of context-oriented identifiers constitutes just as many nodes for attaching relevant properties. By definition, properties are valid within a particular context; a set of properties which corresponds to a specific context is called intext.

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

 

In a recursive scheme the prescription of behavior in terms of process (also read: function) can be pushed downwards in the direction of decomposition. Actually, it's not so much the scheme that is recursive as are the concepts that are applied to construct it. The nodes where decomposition stops (for whatever, often practical reason) are where the behavioral/functional modules reside.

in: Notes on Metapattern and enneadic semiosis, part 1

 

[C]ontextual decomposition can progress as requirements demand. At every 'node,' the procedure is identical.

in: Notes on Metapattern and enneadic semiosis, part 1

 

Metapattern considered as method for decomposition, from any node there are two directions for decomposition: upwards and downwards (see figures 2 and 3 in Metapattern for converging knowledge management with artificial intelligence). The nil element 'only' sets the practical limit to upward decomposition. I would therefore identify my concept of the nil element with what lies beyond the model. So, all levels considered higher at some moment implicitly lie beyond. As yet another hierarchical level is 'included' by way of contextual specification, the what-lies-beyond gets 'thinner,' but it can never be completely resolved. Of course I am aware that I am once again 'relativizing' a concept, but that's precisely why Metapattern-as-method is open-ended in both hierarchical directions (not to mention its lateral potential).

in: Notes on Metapattern and enneadic semiosis, part 2

 

For accommodating situationally differentiated behaviors, at the minimum three nodes specify some particular behavior. […] Combining nodes […] for situations and/or behaviors of course increases the behavioral variety to be accommodated by a cognitive system.

in: Semiotic connectionism in artificial intelligence

 

W[ith Metapattern, w]hat are traditionally considered relationship instances have become object instances in their own right[, too]. It resembles the synthesis of for example the two approaches to so-called network planning: 1. activity on node and 2. activity on line.

in: The twofold variety of nodes in KnitbITs

 

[E]nneadic dynamics accommodate variety. Suppose that focus materializes as a node in a network. And assume that the focal capacity may shift from one node to another. As some other node now acts as focus, it naturally comes with its particular both motive and concept. And so on …

in: Open conceptual modeling with Metapattern

 

Where the nodes in figure 2 are still labeled in an absolute sense, figure 3 shows how both the situation and the object of figure 2 were established as situated objects, too. In, say, the other direction, the situated object of figure 2 may be taken as either situation or object for yet another situated object, and so on …

in: Open conceptual modeling with Metapattern

 

Every unique configuration you may want to recognize comes to be represented by a node in the model. From a particular node, its constituent nodes in terms of object and situation are contained in the model, too, up to the model’s inevitable boundary, called horizon. In the other direction, a particular node may either as situation or object contribute to constitute yet another node (representing another qualitatively different situated object). That’s how expansion the Metapattern way works. The relationship between situation and object is indeed binary.

in: note 47.27

 

Metapattern is ‘really’ simple … but only from the assumption that behaviour is factored, with ob-/subject and situation being universally suited to be identified as — always two — relevant factors. Of course, the idea of recursion is a bit more sophisticated.

in: note 56.19

 

Metapattern is all about necessary and sufficient differentiation. [ …] Please note that the idea behind Metapattern is that every ‘real ’ object differentiates behaviour according to situation. Such differences can then be unambiguously modelled (also read: described) with, for every different behaviour of some object, context as explicit description of situation. Adding recursion, whatever reality at whatever scope may be ‘covered. ’
Through such recursion and starting from some node, then, its particular context is composed as the inverted tree of the nodes from there extending to, and including, the model ’s so-called horizon. [The set of situationally differentiated behaviours of what is — considered to be — the ‘same ’ object, then,] is conceptually arrived at considering the set of nodes that all refer to the same contextless node (suggesting a nil-identity connecting the different object ’s situational identities).

in: note 80.10