Metapattern is a method-with-language developed by Information Dynamics for information modeling to support variety of meaning.
Let me first of all acknowledge the inherent, near insurmountable difficulty of appreciating Metapattern. It involves a paradigm shift. In this particular case, someone continuing to abide by the epistemological paradigm of logical atomism can only fail to grasp a method rigorously starting from assumptions about interdependency.
As I both see and regret it, that is what still happens all over when people try to put their finger behind Metapattern. They soon give up, actually, because they don’t find the, say, opening for understanding where they’ve come to expect it, i.e. where they continue to believe it should be. Following the logic of their familiar, yet as a rule still subconsciously held paradigm, they are ‘bound’ to conclude that Metapattern is useless, et cetera. But in fact, if I may say so, they just don’t get it.
And most people will of course argue that there cannot be any use for something when they’re not able to properly understand it. I’m sure you yourself have heard fallacies like that over and over again from opponents to innovation. But isn’t it typical of novelty that it requires us to learn in order to appreciate it, et cetera?
This brings me to the reason why I’ve written this note. I suppose you are certainly not at all put off by the prerequisite of a paradigm shift. For it is precisely such a shift by which a major innovation is characterized.
What I hope to draw your attention to, then, is the need for qualitative change in perspective as exhibited by Metapattten. So far, we’ve been developing and deploying mostly separate information systems. Interconnecting them occurs more or less through afterthought. But as professional designers know, extrapolating from the simple to the complex soon runs into troubles. A limit that is rapidly encountered is conceptual in nature. As it remains unrecognized, we continue our lame attempts at interconnection, that is, at ever increasing cost, but without systemic success and losing highly profitable business opportunities.
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. Given such infrastructural resources, of course there remain separate information systems (also read: applications, services, et cetera) … but also with a difference. It may be compared with how building architecture has become interrelated with urban and regional planning. The largely increased scope has led to additional disciplines, with contributions from all relevant disciplines subsequently to be coordinated.
Without viewing the whole world as an interdependent informational domain, it is in fact impossible to recognize how Metapattern would contribute.
Information Dynamics is in no position to single-handedly cater to the needs of the ensuing new market. Which company is? Therefore, Information Dynamics is looking for partners. Information Dynamics contributes this admittedly radical vision, including an up-and-running software platform to demonstrate and apply it.
After this short message, do you have a feeling that I might be pointing at new, high-potential business opportunities? And could our collaboration also give your company a head-start for new business?
I am very much looking forward to your reply,
Navigate directly to English-language texts on Metapattern and related subjects. Pieter also authored Metapattern; context and time in information models (Addison-Wesley, 2001).
June 26th, 2012 © Information Dynamics