Anatoly Levenchuk's Runglish Blog

One more excerpt from thread with Kent Palmer from Google Wave (https://wave.google.com/wave/#restored:wave:googlewave.com!w%252Bi8fNaszLA). Kent Palmer refer to Dynamic Ontology (that Bateson describe as meta-levels of learning in his book “Ecology of Mind”) and importance of Schemes in Systems Engineering.
* * *
When you will speak about methodology then you immediately will speak about dialog between engineering and science and need to speak about communication and thus provide Scheme for thinking and communication.

I completely agree that Analitical Philosophy of little help in this. I agree that you need Continental Philosophy. I completely agree that you need Bateson, Schedrovitsky and others that deal with Method and Scheme.

Contemporary Methodology is developing not in philosophy area. It stem from computer science AND computer engineering (both! Because it study method). There is Method Engineering that heavily use Ontology (many levels of Meta-models) as it’s instrument.

There many subfields in Method Engineering — Situational Method Engineering my favorite because they try to research/create ontology of Engineering Art-not-Science and thus research/create Engineering Method.

Contemporary programming is about modeling/metamodeling that is about Schemas and ontologies. It is not mainstream as object-oriented crasiness, but very prominent in contemporary engineering (not systems not software engineering. Plain engineering, not divided).

E.g. movement of metamodeling is deal with a) ontology, b) method (they call it “Process”) and c) notation.

Thus another Dynamic ontology subfield is about dynamic Scheme building and Execution of Dynamic Scheme studies in the field of metamodeling (e.g. see http://www.slideshare.net/kruder396/evolution-in-the-large-andnd-in-the-small).

In pure ontology development that is Dynamic not only in meta-level traversing but in 4D sense I can point you to ISO 15926 ontology development (start with http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Publications.html).

I am agree with your critics about majority of Systems Engineers as not meta- and ontology-oriented but disagree that we in world scale have no studies of Systems Engineering as a discipline. We have, but with different names. You consider this studies as “borrowing from other disciplines” but I consider this studies as systems engineering development. Names (e.g. Meta-model, or Ontology, or Scheme, or Data Model) is not important. You always can change vocabulary in systematic manner. Concepts are important, methods are important.