|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | {{info|Content that should be included or incorporated at some point}} | | {{info|Content that should be included or incorporated at some point}} |
| − |
| |
| − | == The four quadrant model ==
| |
| − | We're all familiar with the ''class'' and ''instance'' relationship because it's fundamental to the way we think. Every single thing we see in living reality is an occurrence of specific concepts, and also every object we interact with in our informational life is an instantiation of specific executional patterns defined in the form of some kind of software engineering constructs. This is the case regardless of whether a particular software engineering paradigm actually uses the terms "class" or "instance". We use them herein because they're understood across a diverse range of knowledge domains.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The above description of classes and instances is their self-assertive meaning, the way they behave as units in a functioning system, like a specific blueprint and a specific construction in accord with it. But class and instance also have an integrative function, they each group together into larger structures in their own way as well.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Instances are all about actualised structure constituting real resource, the most fundamental forms of resource being space, time (focus) and communications connection. The multiplex is the natural way to organise instances into space and time in a scale-independent way. Each instance can be a part of a larger structure the same way that it allocates its own resource across smaller structure within.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Classes form into a wider ontology naturally because each class is defining through local usage the set of other classes that are required of in what circumstances. A class is a package of circumstances and corresponding behaviours, like errors and corrections. The meaning within is refined through local use, and these changes contribute to what's established overall.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * summarise the whole tree aspect of class and instance
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A more down-to-earth way of describing class and instance aspects is captured in the popular business management phrase "work on it, not just in it", originally coined by Michael Gerber in his 1985 book "The E-Myth Revisited". This refers to the idea that self-employed people need to regularly take a step back and to check that the business is moving in the right direction and achieving it's actual purpose.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | So the four quadrants come first from the fact that a holon is an organisation which has two general "departments", one dedicated to the organisation's local purpose (the normal way we expect organisations to work). And another department that's dedicated to the whole network (playing it's small part in representing the whole). By convention we put the outward facing "whole" oriented department at the top, and the inward facing local department at the bottom.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Each of the departments are themselves divided into left and right halves where the left represents the "on it" class side, and the right represents the "in it" instance side. Here we have four "directions" formed from two ''dichotomous axes'' (vertical and a horizontal) the top is about the whole, the bottom is about the local self, the left is class and the right is instance.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Koestler also has these class and instance aspects in his holarchy model, under the name of ''fixed rules'' (class) and ''flexible strategies'' (instance). He associated them with the integrative and self-assertive behaviours rather than splitting them out into four distinct aspects of behaviour.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | These four aspects of behaviour give rise to the four quadrants, the top-left (outward-class), top-right (outward-instance), the bottom-right (inward-instance) and the bottom-left (inward-class). Following is a description in terms of organisational meaning of each of these quadrants. After introducing them in this general organisational way, we can then go into detail about a particular software pattern out of which these behavioural aspects and quadrants naturally emerge.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Top-left: The unified ontology ===
| |
| − | * quadrant, outward class
| |
| − | * curation (collaborative ontological curation), sharing, usage statistics
| |
| − | ** ontology is names ordered by establishment in usage
| |
| − | ** curation is an organised process, not simply auto-merging
| |
| − | * being outward, this is a public protocol pattern
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Top-right: The market ===
| |
| − | * society quadrant, outward instance
| |
| − | * being outward, this is a public protocol pattern
| |
| − | * hayek connection
| |
| − | * extends the ontology (instance extends class)
| |
| − | * allows specialisation to grow in special interest groups
| |
| − | * marketplaces and market ecosystem
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Bottom-right: Representation ===
| |
| − | * behavioural quadrant, inward instance
| |
| − | * being inward, this is a private data structure pattern, it's a continuation of the TR (market, public, multiplex) inwards with specific internal activity
| |
| − | * working ''in'' the organisation
| |
| − | * reducing workload, booking, committing
| |
| − | * reconciling activity
| |
| − | * expectation, performance and reputation
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Bottom-left: Representative ===
| |
| − | * intentional quadrant, inward class
| |
| − | * being ''class'' this is actually a continuation of the ontology inwards, changing over time depending on salience, and having local adaptations and curations
| |
| − | * being inward, this is a private data structure pattern
| |
| − | * working ''on'' the organisation
| |
| − | * purpose, goals, direction
| |
| − | * Adaptation to suit our local needs
| |
