Issue 6527: Incorrect usage/definition of "emergence" in Common Behavior Chapter (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. James J. Odell, email(at)jamesodell.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: PROBLEM STATEMENT In section 13.1 of the Common Behaviors chapter, the following paragraph is contains an incorrect definition of "emergent behavior": "Emergent behavior results from the interaction of one or more participant objects. If the participating objects are parts of a larger composite object, an emerging behavior can be seen as indirectly describing the behavior of the container object also. Nevertheless, an emergent behavior is simply the sum of the executing behaviors of the participant objects." The current area of scientific study know as Complex Adaptive Systems, or Complexity Science", describes emergent behavior as "the appearance of a coherent pattern that arises out of interactions among simpler objects, that is MORE than just their summed behavior." (emphasis mine) Furthermore, Complexity Science expressly states that a behavior that is limited to the sum of its behavior is NOT emergent. (See references, below.) Emergence is a primary area of study at the Santa Fe Institute and has Nobel Laureates and MacArthur geniuses studying the effect. Therefore, I think that the use of the terms "emergence" (used once) and "emergent behavior" (used 9 times) are not correct for Common Behavior chapter. If left in, they will cause confusion, because the terminology is already well-established in both science and industry. PROPOSED SOLUTION 1) Common Behavior Domain Model (Fig. 306) to contain the classed called BehaviorEmergence. Therefore, the class should wither be removed or another tem substituted. 2) Remove, or rename, all 9 usages of "emergent behavior" if the chapter and appendix. References (to name a few) : Holland, J.H., Emergence: From Chaos to Order. 1998, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (MacArthur Fellowship Genius Award) Gell-Mann, M., The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. 1994, New York: W. H. Freeman. (Nobel Laureate in Physics) Kauffman, S., At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. 1995, New York: Oxford University Press. (Professor, Santa Fe Institute) Coveney, P. and R. Highfield, Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World. 1995, New York: Fawcett Columbine. Waldrop, M.M., Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. 1992, New York: Simon and Schuster. (PhD in elementary particle physics) The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex by Harold J. Morowitz Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software -- by Steven Johnson A New Kind of Science by Steve Wolfram Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: November 9, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The learned submitter of this issue correctly points to fascinating literature on the emergence of structure. However, chaos theory does not have a unique claim on this terminology, and moreover, the usage of this term in the common behavior section is reasonably close to the terminology pointed to by the learned submitter. In UML, emergent behavior refers to behavior that is not specified as a executing behavior but that arises as the result of the cooperation of objects with executing behavior. In earlier drafts, the term “supervenient behavior” was used, but deemed as too unusual a terminology. (Note that supervenience would be the most accurate description of the phenomenon as behavior arising from occurring behavior.) In either case, emergence has reasonably close connotations, and there is little danger that modelers are confused by the more specialized use of the term in chaos theory. However, upon rereading the introductory section, the issue does warrant a small change: Change the last sentence of the paragraph starting with “Emergent behavior results…” on p.369 to “Nevertheless, an emergent behavior can result from the executing behaviors of the participant objects.” End of Annotations:===== er-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:03:44 -0500 Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue From: James Odell To: Juergen Boldt Hi Juergen, Would you add this to the mix? Thanks, Jim ------------------------------- This issue was submitted by James Odell and refers UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF This is issue # nnnn UML 2 Issue: Incorrect usage and definition of "emergence" in Common Behavior Chapter PROBLEM STATEMENT In section 13.1 of the Common Behaviors chapter, the following paragraph is contains an incorrect definition of "emergent behavior": "Emergent behavior results from the interaction of one or more participant objects. If the participating objects are parts of a larger composite object, an emerging behavior can be seen as indirectly describing the behavior of the container object also. Nevertheless, an emergent behavior is simply the sum of the executing behaviors of the participant objects." The current area of scientific study know as Complex Adaptive Systems, or Complexity Science", describes emergent behavior as "the appearance of a coherent pattern that arises out of interactions among simpler objects, that is MORE than just their summed behavior." (emphasis mine) Furthermore, Complexity Science expressly states that a behavior that is limited to the sum of its behavior is NOT emergent. (See references, below.) Emergence is a primary area of study at the Santa Fe Institute and has Nobel Laureates and MacArthur geniuses studying the effect. Therefore, I think that the use of the terms "emergence" (used once) and "emergent behavior" (used 9 times) are not correct for Common Behavior chapter. If left in, they will cause confusion, because the terminology is already well-established in both science and industry. PROPOSED SOLUTION 1) Common Behavior Domain Model (Fig. 306) to contain the classed called BehaviorEmergence. Therefore, the class should wither be removed or another tem substituted. 2) Remove, or rename, all 9 usages of "emergent behavior" if the chapter and appendix. References (to name a few) : Holland, J.H., Emergence: From Chaos to Order. 1998, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (MacArthur Fellowship Genius Award) Gell-Mann, M., The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. 1994, New York: W. H. Freeman. (Nobel Laureate in Physics) Kauffman, S., At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. 1995, New York: Oxford University Press. (Professor, Santa Fe Institute) Coveney, P. and R. Highfield, Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World. 1995, New York: Fawcett Columbine. Waldrop, M.M., Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. 1992, New York: Simon and Schuster. (PhD in elementary particle physics) The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex by Harold J. Morowitz Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software -- by Steven Johnson A New Kind of Science by Steve Wolfram OMG Issue No: 6527 Title: Incorrect usage/definition of "emergence" in Common Behavior Chapter Source: Kabira Technologies, Inc. (Prof. James J. Odell, email@jamesodell.com omg@jamesodell.com) Summary: PROBLEM STATEMENT In section 13.1 of the Common Behaviors chapter, the following paragraph is contains an incorrect definition of "emergent behavior": "Emergent behavior results from the interaction of one or more participant objects. If the participating objects are parts of a larger composite object, an emerging behavior can be seen as indirectly describing the behavior of the container object also. Nevertheless, an emergent behavior is simply the sum of the executing behaviors of the participant objects." The current area of scientific study know as Complex Adaptive Systems, or Complexity Science", describes emergent behavior as "the appearance of a coherent pattern that arises out of interactions among simpler objects, that is MORE than just their summed behavior." (emphasis mine) Furthermore, Complexity Science expressly states that a behavior that is limited to the sum of its behavior is NOT emergent. (See references, below.) Emergence is a primary area of study at the Santa Fe Institute and has Nobel Laureates and MacArthur geniuses studying the effect. Therefore, I think that the use of the terms "emergence" (used once) and "emergent behavior" (used 9 times) are not correct for Common Behavior chapter. If left in, they will cause confusion, because the terminology is already well-established in both science and industry. References (to name a few) : Holland, J.H., Emergence: From Chaos to Order. 1998, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (MacArthur Fellowship Genius Award) Gell-Mann, M., The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. 1994, New York: W. H. Freeman. (Nobel Laureate in Physics) Kauffman, S., At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. 1995, New York: Oxford University Press. (Professor, Santa Fe Institute) Coveney, P. and R. Highfield, Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World. 1995, New York: Fawcett Columbine. Waldrop, M.M., Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. 1992, New York: Simon and Schuster. (PhD in elementary particle physics) The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex by Harold J. Morowitz Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software . by Steven Johnson A New Kind of Science by Steve Wolfram Discussion: The learned submitter of this issue correctly points to fascinating literature on the emergence of structure. However, chaos theory does not have a unique claim on this terminology, and moreover, the usage of this term in the common behavior section is reasonably close to the terminology pointed to by the learned submitter. In UML, emergent behavior refers to behavior that is not specified as a executing behavior but that arises as the result of the cooperation of objects with executing behavior. In earlier drafts, the term .supervenient behavior. was used, but deemed as too unusual a terminology. (Note that supervenience would be the most accurate description of the phenomenon as behavior arising from occurring behavior.) In either case, emergence has reasonably close connotations, and there is little danger that modelers are confused by the more specialized use of the term in chaos theory. However, upon rereading the introductory section, the issue does warrant a small change: Change the last sentence of the paragraph starting with .Emergent behavior results.. on p.369 to .Nevertheless, an emergent behavior results from the executing behaviors of the participant objects.. Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 6527 Title: Incorrect usage/definition of "emergence" in Common Behavior Chapter Source: Kabira Technologies, Inc. (Prof. James J. Odell, email@jamesodell.com omg@jamesodell.com) Summary: PROBLEM STATEMENT In section 13.1 of the Common Behaviors chapter, the following paragraph is contains an incorrect definition of "emergent behavior": "Emergent behavior results from the interaction of one or more participant objects. If the participating objects are parts of a larger composite object, an emerging behavior can be seen as indirectly describing the behavior of the container object also. Nevertheless, an emergent behavior is simply the sum of the executing behaviors of the participant objects." The current area of scientific study know as Complex Adaptive Systems, or Complexity Science", describes emergent behavior as "the appearance of a coherent pattern that arises out of interactions among simpler objects, that is MORE than just their summed behavior." (emphasis mine) Furthermore, Complexity Science expressly states that a behavior that is limited to the sum of its behavior is NOT emergent. (See references, below.) Emergence is a primary area of study at the Santa Fe Institute and has Nobel Laureates and MacArthur geniuses studying the effect. Therefore, I think that the use of the terms "emergence" (used once) and "emergent behavior" (used 9 times) are not correct for Common Behavior chapter. If left in, they will cause confusion, because the terminology is already well-established in both science and industry. References (to name a few) : Holland, J.H., Emergence: From Chaos to Order. 1998, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (MacArthur Fellowship Genius Award) Gell-Mann, M., The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. 1994, New York: W. H. Freeman. (Nobel Laureate in Physics) Kauffman, S., At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. 1995, New York: Oxford University Press. (Professor, Santa Fe Institute) Coveney, P. and R. Highfield, Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World. 1995, New York: Fawcett Columbine. Waldrop, M.M., Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. 1992, New York: Simon and Schuster. (PhD in elementary particle physics) The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex by Harold J. Morowitz Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software . by Steven Johnson A New Kind of Science by Steve Wolfram Discussion: The learned submitter of this issue correctly points to fascinating literature on the emergence of structure. However, chaos theory does not have a unique claim on this terminology, and moreover, the usage of this term in the common behavior section is reasonably close to the terminology pointed to by the learned submitter. In UML, emergent behavior refers to behavior that is not specified as a executing behavior but that arises as the result of the cooperation of objects with executing behavior. In earlier drafts, the term .supervenient behavior. was used, but deemed as too unusual a terminology. (Note that supervenience would be the most accurate description of the phenomenon as behavior arising from occurring behavior.) In either case, emergence has reasonably close connotations, and there is little danger that modelers are confused by the more specialized use of the term in chaos theory. However, upon rereading the introductory section, the issue does warrant a small change: Change the last sentence of the paragraph starting with .Emergent behavior results.. on p.369 to .Nevertheless, an emergent behavior results from the executing behaviors of the participant objects.. Disposition: Resolved