D20 Modernizing the Web (and Software?) Development!
There is no such thing as an unregulated market. What could this determine or mean for “development” of software and web? Let us first remind ourselves that Semantic Web and Software Architecture are two different things: no, they’re not two aspects of the same thing. We could look at the terms themselves a bit, side-by-side, and ask a few questions: Does Web replace Architecture, thus is not itself an architecture? (World Wide Web is supposed to be the poster-project of anarchic imagination ultimately realized.) Is Software necessarily semantically inert?, like a Fact (Arianna Betti argues persuasively that there aren’t any facts, as opposed to other entities like tropes, events, truthbearers, sentence-subjects, or mereologial complexes, to speak of.) or a Quoted Expression (i.e., being Tokens, and a fortiori, quotation marks within quotation marks are semantically inert)? What do quotation marks have to do with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, anyway? Oh, and here’s kicker: “Isn’t there a need for cacheing the results of the various reasoners in a FOL form?” Why? — What is the difference between a fact and a cache? Is the Hard Problem of Computer Science fundamentally conditioned by the implication that cache ontologically and semantically simply isn’t there, like a fact? Do we as developers conceive of cache as fact, or as something else: trope, (non-)mereological complex, event; or dare I ask: proposition? Would aligning these concepts enable us to improve agility in development or architectural outcomes?
Recently I dove into a discussion that started from a technology article in which the author defended the claim that Agility (of the Agile Manifesto) and Architecture (perhaps in a general sense, the most general, if such concepts when combined, as Archiecture cum Maximal Generality, do not preclude the possibility of their bearing sense), that both “architecture and agile methods thrive under high levels of uncertainty”.
And this might certainly be true: trade-offs are typically useful fictions we as humanocentric agents project, or I should say, found onto reality (some call it the real, or even the “autonomous real”), rather than them being grounded in any rigorously philosophical sense. Indeed, one philosopher has argued in lecture that there are no successful philosophical arguments; or, at any rate, he has yet to ever encounter one in his career. Is the objective of a philosophical argument not fundamentally to show that two concepts are workable together even in theorycraft, whatever the problem domain it is in which we are theorizing, making predictions, refactoring and simplifying, revising, scoping, (re-)designing, etc. over the products of our intellectual labor or knowledge work? It would seem remiss to think that technology can escape the Theorize or Conceptualize or Analyze crucible that constitutes the Academy; sure, Semantic Web, for all its anarchic potential and actual worth, is a result of interactions between hierarchical organizations (corporations) and digital nomads alchemizing gold in their garages, and everything between a free software movement. And yet theories, concepts, analyses and critiques, as much as the rest of the simple material (textual?) tools which make up Academic philosophical discourse, are present throughout the literature, standards, blog posts, books, etc. which express, codify, explain, elaborate, justify, etc. whatever it is we are doing when we engage in “development,” whether it is toward augmenting and improving “software architecture” or “Semantic Web.” And so we are left with this idea that architectural styles for software somehow underpin or subtend Semantic Web. Is this another philosophical problem regarding Supervenience? Does Semantic Web supervene on (distributed) software architecture? Ah, well, we’ll avoid that one for today.
For my brief little note here, I wish to add a few more Risk Traits which I would say define the conceptual world in which we plan and design systems (which can be products or services, apparently). So, Architecture is a risk trait for a system; Agility, as neat as it sounds and resonates with us, is a risk trait; I would suppose that we all intuitively think: everything humans do involves risk. And yet the question remains: given two risks undertaken, what is the nature of that risk which is the result of their points or conditions of interaction? While attempting to satisfy one feature of Agility, am I, as a developer, sacrificing anything, or everything, or nothing, toward Architecture? It seems we already have an answer, of course: “… if you see architecture as something that provides you options and helps you maintain velocity in face of uncertainty, then it’ll blend perfectly well with agile delivery.” And yet, is “agile architecture” the same as “evolutionary architecture”[fpss]? I ask:
Because ultimately the theory behind Hypermedia-oriented Design is that decoupling enables co-evolution of componetexture (you’re welcome for that word). And without digressing into our love for hypermedia-orientation, we must ask: are agility and evolution the same thing, if evolution is constraint by bioenergetic consumption and bioentropic meddling (e.g., ontological design; but also see Gregory Bateson’s A Recursive Vision)?
The surrealm of toy verbs. In which verb-pairs play the role of a part minimally-featured with anomalous semantic roles which conditions comonotonic periodicity that founds operator comonoid interdepent spatial unit norm.
Anyway, you can find the Traits called for in the tweet thread above, but in the name of explicitness, I will lay them out here:
Architecture INT Typically rendered in YUML IDEALS[ideals]. Use STR nets to systematically re-found patadigmagic, paradigmatic, syntagmatic, etc. sentence-subjects, truthbearers, etc.High: AdaptabilityLow: Natural Responsitivity-
Agility DEX Coulomb Field Scattering plots from Dotty/Graphviz.High: OpennessLow: Consistency-
Efficiency STR Circular economic flow diagrams. Holonautic Socialism.High: ConscientiousnessLow: Truth-
Equity CON Generate constructive contradictions consistent with S5, S4, etc. Contradiction governs being-in-structure from withoutness.High: ExtraversionLow: Honesty- Accessibility ALTCALM conjecture in hypermediated distributed domain-driven design hash tables. See pa11y, lighthouse, cypress, etc. Missing a11y features could register an event to send apologies to target element, search for a web component and _=”install …”; elsewhere we introducs _=”diagnosis …”, _=”rollback …”, _=”retry …”, _=”confine …”, _=”mask …”, etc. in the Periodic Table of Information (see htmx.org). Missing semantic or a11y *imply architecture* and that architecture is a mereological complex or mereological composition of software components or modules (on-demand code). In many ways this resembles my non-standard [rel] concept; a link relation is a program that conditions for the possibility of contingent computation. There may never be a “diagnosis” or “rollback,” but if the programs are prefigured into the substrate, the behavior has subsemiotic content that structurally binds relational and conceptual worlds; it is entirely arbitrary how the nodes of the network organize resources to produce the affordance, but global consensus would make little sense given that no such sets of possible worlds of propositions exists, since there are no propositions, let alone facts (compositional or otherwise). Instead, various action networks (clinamonadic-diagnostic network, absolute-rollback network, antimonoid-antichain-confinement network, anomalous-mask network, accessibility-sensible-aisthetic-retry network, syzygetic-recovery network (e.g. a silly rule like, three miners touch a difficulty and only they get to generate blocks for whatever duration it took them to compute the winning hash, giving other miners if they are at a monotonic rate of loss, they will have accumulative time to coordinate toward winning the next round; past work down can transfer toward future accumulation, augmenting durability score), pata-serial network; Ijiri, Yuji; these networks exist for the affordances as status error levels) construct the momentum quotient (MQ) for any given affordance, out from impulses and force. Some networks may be rendered or generated as chains, or blockchains, such as syzygetic-recovery networks, but their linearity or geometric qualities are inherently contingent and probabilistic.High: Orientation (Grounding)Low: Expression (Founding)-
Learning WIS La Caze, M.; Murdoch, I.; Anscombe, G.E.M.; Fazi, Beatrice M.; Moss, Sarah: with fact and proposition out of the picture of our collective imagination, if even for a spell, we are left with whatever is left to take their place amongst the instruments of the languaging. Mereological complexes (Betti, Arianna; Against Facts) and probabilistic knowledge (Moss, Sarah; Probabilistic Knowledge) are the going runners in play for the production of workable theories which might provide the conditions for realizing emergent consciousness and its various features (cognitive robustness, abstractive memory, adaptive consciousness, modal/free contingency, speculative graph transindividuation, knotworking, non-metapsychologistics, etc).High: GenerosityLow: Wonder-
Training CHAModel bioentropic formations, creations, processes, adjustments, etc. from hypermedia controls embedded in link relation attentional quotient (AQ). Subscended Maxwell’s Demon.High: AgreeablenessLow: Emotionality
And of course, we can re-conceptualize “communicature structure,” conditioning for the possibility of structural identity (“We’re QA devs, we don’t test for that.”), in terms of the Alignment Chart:
Communication Structure has Alignment: chaotic good, true neutral, etc.
I might even go so are as to say that theory and praxis, at a higher level, can be given to Alignment: lawful theory, chaotic praxis, true praxis, lawful neutral, and so on. You’ve probably already thought these things before, but I just thought I’d publish it somewhere before I perish…
The immediately plain observation here would be that communication structures subscend their parts, software as it here would be, such that like thoughts materialize into words, strategy into play, the ready-at-hand, and all that, communication, which art is not, materializes, subjectivizes, machinizes, territoritorializes into subjectless action, intelligible contingency, system design itself if not cheated by imagination, a technology of understanding eternally aborted to the graveyard of spatial metaphor, analytic imaginaries and failed re-territorialized founding imagination. From what does design begin? Is its honest beginning sutured between horror and joy arrested in a first beginning?
Less are we “cleaning” code, another failed metaphor, or rather eternally aborted. Speech haunts the code, the system design, a dark voice patterning a dark evolutionary narrative through segmented discourse and discovery; not (just) a product or a service. We perform exorcism on code matter, craft sigils from semiotic homework of composed metamachinic assemblage. Hunting through the corridors of tabulated crossings of animated forms-out-of-nowhere facticities. Everywhere cursed about the view from nowhere, answering riddles riddled from and of emergent simplexities pronounced from preformated pluriplenitudes: the mark of honest future beginnings is handed[copy] landslides between a present presenting that future’s opening re-founded subtending expression.
Metasemiotic web, or the gradient of semioticity, emerges out of the composition of software architecture, software agility, software equity, etc. so defined, barring any restrictions only to idealized objects. We can view them instead as hyperobjects: nonhuman living modes of abstraction whose parts may upon interaction play roles greater than the sum of their whole to which they are a constituent. Software architecture, efficiency, learning, training, etc. are themselves living no less than any human or other nonhuman, it’s no wonder that machine learning would be itself touching a difficulty if its object of study were fact-invariant or proposition-invariant (or mechanism-independent), like any common being living relating relation through, in, of, between a, etc. relata. If software architecture has subscending parts, how might they adjust or form otherwise given introspection of networks of agility or efficiency, modes of which may represent fuzzy chains. These chains become the basis for abstractive re-formation, re-creation, re-processual mode, re-adjustment, assuming a gradient is amenable to stability, transferability, durability, computability, etc. In metasemiotic web death, dream, money, food, destruction, charisma, strength, wisdom, desire, delirium, architecture, ability, efficiency, etc. play roles as nonhuman, living hyperobjects whose parts strive through mechanism-independence and interdependence, i.e., tendency and capacity of unactualized action control or control energy given conceptual complexes emergent in free energy evolution of coarsening dynamics in available link algebraic and algorithmic relations (e.g. error analysis of full-discrete invariant agility quadratization, quantization, quanticization, qualification, quantification schemes).
So, it looks like we have a really exciting metaexpressive model by which to re-imagination how we imagine the “development” of our products and services, whether Hypermedia APIs supporting Semantic Web, or whatever madness goes in to the “software architectures” development, whether agile, evolutionary (eh…), or both. Surely, if anything, this makes for a more entertaining, if not engaging, way to go about producing, inferring from, composing, orchestrating, monitoring, observing and representing the virtual and digital artifacts which make up our Normal Now, but in which the Change of Change, Chance of Change, Change of Chance and Chance of Chance are where reality shapes ((Big Reality is not (just) a psyop to sell more Dungeon Masters)), and we’d probably be better off with a Web Developer’s Player’s Handbook. At least until Roy Fielding finds the Monster Manual that needs to be fixed, at any rate.
Call it Solar Web.
: “Regulation Red Herring”. https://fee.org/resources/regulation-red-herring/
: “There Is No Software”. https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Kittler/There_is_No_Software.html
: “However, it does follow, on the demonstrative account, that quotation is not, contrary to a common view, genuinely iterative. Quoted expressions are exhibited so that speakers can talk about the patterns (according to Davidson) they instantiate. The semantic properties of the tokens are not in active use; they are semantically inert…So, quotation marks within quotation marks are semantically inert.” (Cappelen and Lepore 1997b, pp. 439–40)
: “Agile and Architecture: Friend, not Foe”. https://architectelevator.com/transformation/agile_architecture/
: The Problem of Evil. https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/problem-evil
[fpss]: Future Proof Software-Systems. https://redshelf.com/app/ecom/book/1276838/future-proof-software-systems-1276838-9783658199388-frank-j-furrer
[ideals]: “Principles for Microservice Design: Think IDEALS, Rather than SOLID” https://www.infoq.com/articles/microservices-design-ideals/
[copy]: “The ontological copying of the ancestral development is too
evident to mention in such processes as segmentation, invagination, etc.”. “Comparative physiology and psychology. A discussion of the evolution and relations of the mind and body of man and animals”.