125
Foundations in Systems Integration
universe is not “aware” of these contrivances, nor is this kind of universe cognizant of rules governing such contrivances. Our worldviews afford us a great
deal of freedom, while this kind of universe most likely has much less. By
delimiting properties of EMMI, we proffer definitions and explanations; we
“justify” theories and pretend laws of nature; and we add to wisdoms and
inklings of “great” thinkers. Were the reasonings of the “great” thinkers by
some measure “correct?” If so, how would we know? The ontology for integration posited by the author presumes the kind of universe where objects (both
physical and intellectual) and their EMMI are secondary to space–time. Space–
time does seem to prefigure kinds of relations that are possible. This kind of
universe might support* the ontology and mereology posed in this book.
The way in which integration is viewed determines what should be considered as the variables of integration and how those variables should be grouped.
The totality of these variables and their grouping(s) is the ontology of integration (these theoretical worldviews—classical, relational, and mechanistic—are
described in Section “Nature of Physical Objects”). The author suggests that
there are at least three theories of integration that are consistent with thoughtful reasoning about the lifecycle of products or services, in which integration
has a relation to lifecycle stages. The difference between the three theories can
be summarized by the following example. Consider an object that is moving
and emitting (or conveying) EMMI. Movement is relative to a reference frame
and EMMI is conditioned on the environment, the inputs and outputs, and the
mechanism of the object. Further, movement and EMMI may be related (as is
the case for decelerating charged particles, i.e., electrons or protons, emitting
x-rays, termed bremsstrahlung † ). Therefore, the object’s movement may be
related in some ways to the object’s properties, traits, and attributes.
Nature of Physical Objects
From a perspective of classical mechanics, that is, the worldview most frequently adopted when engineering a product or service, objects are thought
of as having various performances, all of which are measurable to a degree,
sufficient to satisfy the needs of customers and users. For this reason, an
acceptable ontology for integration of human-built products and services can
be based similarly on a view that objects have performance, which is in agreement with classical Newtonian physics. We term this as classical integration.
Alternatively, a relational view of products and services can be posited
based on the relative measures according to a measurement standard or
standards. For example, instead of integration based on a set of objects with
various performances for their functions, relational integration depends on
the interactions between objects to derive the functions which in turn are
measurable. We term this as relational integration. It is only when two
* Might not.
† German, bremsen “to brake,” and strahlung “radiation.”
Foundations in Systems Integration
universe is not “aware” of these contrivances, nor is this kind of universe cognizant of rules governing such contrivances. Our worldviews afford us a great
deal of freedom, while this kind of universe most likely has much less. By
delimiting properties of EMMI, we proffer definitions and explanations; we
“justify” theories and pretend laws of nature; and we add to wisdoms and
inklings of “great” thinkers. Were the reasonings of the “great” thinkers by
some measure “correct?” If so, how would we know? The ontology for integration posited by the author presumes the kind of universe where objects (both
physical and intellectual) and their EMMI are secondary to space–time. Space–
time does seem to prefigure kinds of relations that are possible. This kind of
universe might support* the ontology and mereology posed in this book.
The way in which integration is viewed determines what should be considered as the variables of integration and how those variables should be grouped.
The totality of these variables and their grouping(s) is the ontology of integration (these theoretical worldviews—classical, relational, and mechanistic—are
described in Section “Nature of Physical Objects”). The author suggests that
there are at least three theories of integration that are consistent with thoughtful reasoning about the lifecycle of products or services, in which integration
has a relation to lifecycle stages. The difference between the three theories can
be summarized by the following example. Consider an object that is moving
and emitting (or conveying) EMMI. Movement is relative to a reference frame
and EMMI is conditioned on the environment, the inputs and outputs, and the
mechanism of the object. Further, movement and EMMI may be related (as is
the case for decelerating charged particles, i.e., electrons or protons, emitting
x-rays, termed bremsstrahlung † ). Therefore, the object’s movement may be
related in some ways to the object’s properties, traits, and attributes.
Nature of Physical Objects
From a perspective of classical mechanics, that is, the worldview most frequently adopted when engineering a product or service, objects are thought
of as having various performances, all of which are measurable to a degree,
sufficient to satisfy the needs of customers and users. For this reason, an
acceptable ontology for integration of human-built products and services can
be based similarly on a view that objects have performance, which is in agreement with classical Newtonian physics. We term this as classical integration.
Alternatively, a relational view of products and services can be posited
based on the relative measures according to a measurement standard or
standards. For example, instead of integration based on a set of objects with
various performances for their functions, relational integration depends on
the interactions between objects to derive the functions which in turn are
measurable. We term this as relational integration. It is only when two
* Might not.
† German, bremsen “to brake,” and strahlung “radiation.”