The TRIZ Ontology Webinar. Nov. 03, 2020

Mikhail Rubin: The ontologies “System Operator” and “System Operator Analysis”.

The material

https://triz-summit.ru/ru/confer/TDS-2020/web/sistema_03_11/ (in Russian).

The Chat (English translation below)

Марат Гафитулин : Прошу назвать надсистемы для шариковой ручки, компьютера, лопаты.

Hans-Gert Gräbe :

• Есть ли тоже антисистемный оператор или как антисистема интегрирована? Почему антисистема - это простая тень системы?
• Неоднородность: Как вы относитесь к тому факту, что различные технические принципы (такие как механическое управление заменяется электронным управлением) с разной историей должны быть интегрированы в техническую систему на протяжении всего периода разработки? Уверен, что это скорее правило, не так ли?
• В онтокартах стрелки обозначают предикаты, но обычно они не помечены. За какой предикат они стоят? Всегда за одно и то же?
• Термины подсистемы и надсистемы используются во множественном числе. Как их отношения друг с другом входят в моделирование? Шпаковский использует для этого деревья, как это вписывается?

Hans-Gert Gräbe : Если я правильно понял, совпадает термин “надсистема” с термином “контекст”?

Oleg Stralchonak : Интересно моделировать эволюцию систем способом конвергенции-слияния, например переход телевидения в интернет (YouTube) и соответствующее прекращение существование системы Телевизор (и ТВ студии). При этом Управляющие Субъекты (пользователи YouTube) становятся частью новой системы интернет-телевидения, как создатели и потребители контента и системы. Вопрос - нужно ли рассматривать Человека-Субъекта как часть некоторых новых систем.

Hans-Gert Gräbe : Значит, нужно различать развитие и эволюцию?

Hans-Gert Gräbe : Это означает, однако, что законы, определяющие развитие технических систем, сами по себе противоречат друг другу. Очень хорошо, я говорил об этом уже два года.

Len Kaplan : Владимир Петров писал когда-то, что некоторые законы развития работают как в одну, так и в другую (обратную) сторону…

Englisch translation

Marat Gafitulin : What are the supersystems for ballpoint pen, computer, shovels?

• Rubin: The supersystem heavily depends on the context of consideration.
• Gafitulin: It does not only depend on context but also on the perspective - you have also here to distinguish between phylogenesis and ontogenesis perspectives. In my opinion there are only two lines, functional line and topographical line.
• Rubin: See (Rubin 2002). Phylogenesis and ontogenesis of a system have no much in common with the same notions from biology.
  • Rubin M.S. On Theory of Developing of Material Systems (TDMS).
    • http://temm.ru/en/section.php?docId=3823
    • This is part of a whole collection of texts about a Theory of Evolution of Matter and Models (TEMM)
• Gafitulin: The distinction between phylogenesis and ontogenesis is similar to the distinction between technique and technology, but the latter is probably a more appropriate notion.

Hans-Gert Gräbe :

• Is there also an anti-system operator or how is the anti-system integrated? Why is the anti-system a simple shadow of the system?
  • Gräbe: This relates to the picture in the slides where the anti-system looks like a second level of tiles behind the tiles representing the systems in their different states.
  • Rubin: The anti-system is part of the system. I try to reproduce Altshuller’s description of the matter, not my own.
  • Eckardt: This is a limitation of the twodimensional picture. To display the anti-system correctly more dimensions are required.
  • Gafitulin: There is not only the notion of anti-system but also of co-system.
• Inhomogeneity: What about the integration of different technical principles (such as mechanical control that is replaced by digital one) with different histories into the system operator diagram throughout the full development period? I’m sure it’s quite common in reality, isn’t it?
  • Gräbe: This relates to Rubin’s requirement on the system operator diagram to be homogeneous. The question is how to invoke a inhomogeneous past (i.e., having several development lines in the past, that are joining in the present) in such a diagram.
  • Rubin: These different lines have to be integrated in a single tile in the dialectical sense of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
  • Kuryan: Distinguish between development along lines and along facts.
• In ontocards diagrams, the arrows indicate predicates, but usually they are not marked. What is the predicate? Is it always the same?
  • Shchedrin show that this is a shortening in the diagrams, in the OSA source the arrows are marked and one can inspect that following the links near the diagrams at the https://triz-summit.ru/onto_triz/ site.
• The terms subsystems and supersystems are used in plural. How do these different e.g. supersystems relate to each other? In the diagram they are merged in a single tile. Shpakovsky uses trees to represent that aspect of evolution. How does this fit in this system operator model?

Hans-Gert Gräbe : If I understand correctly, the term “supersystem” coincides with by the term “context”?

• Rubin: Not at all.

Oleg Stralchonak : It is interesting to model the evolution of systems in convergence-merge notion, e.g., the transition of television to the Internet (YouTube) and appropriate termination of the existence of the systems TV (and TV studio). On this way the Managing Subjects (YouTube users) become part of the new Internet television system as creators and consumers of content and the system. The question is whether it is necessary to consider the Human Subject as part of some new systems.

Hans-Gert Gräbe : So you have to distinguish between development and evolution?

• This led to a very controversial debate.
• Rubin relates that with phylogenesis and ontogenesis, development relates to ontogenesis, evolution to phylogenesis, development relates to a species not to a single indiviuum.
• Tregubov explains that Altshuller developed a 5-level model of evolution (of a systems providing a distinguished MPV).
• Kuryan: Evolution is along the S-curve, development the jump from one S-curve to the next.

Hans-Gert Gräbe : This means, however, that the development and evolution laws are themselves in conflict with each other. Very well, I’m talking about this for two years.

• Rubin: Not at all, there are no logical contradictions within the laws.
• Gräbe: There are other kinds of contraditions than logical ones.
• Rubin: If other kinds of contradiction the laws should be formulated in such a way that the contradiction remains within the law.
• Len Kaplan : Vladimir Petrov once wrote that some laws of development work both in one direction and in the other (backwards)

Hans-Gert Gräbe, last update Nov. 10, 2020