Talk:IBE 2008

Quick thoughts on proto-pattern applications

--Fil Salustri 13:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Really understanding the application space for the (proto)patterns will require deep thinking - more than I can offer these days, thanks to the 200 frosh I have to teach this semester.

Still, here's a couple of points:

It's important to show a pattern is evident in the real world - else it's not really a pattern. We've got that on the road, as Norbert has written in the section on applications. We can say that a pattern models a set of problem/solution/context triplets. But these are known (at least to a degree) solutions. The real "proof" of a pattern's usefulness will come from applying it to a problem that doesn't yet have a solution. Still, I think we need to go through the exercise of demonstrating a pattern models a real triplet for 2 important reasons. (1) It's scientific: the pattern is a hypothesis we pose to explain something by showing it treats known things. Then we predict other things (by applying the pattern to unsolved problems). Order is important here. (2) Grappling with the application of the pattern to known triplets will help us understand both the pattern itself - and thus be able to write it down better - and the domain of its applicability.

Another quickie: the word quality appears alot in the applications. How exactly are we defining quality? There's different definitions out there, and I think it matters that we're clear on what exactly we mean. I like Taguchi's take on this - "Taguchi stated that 'quality is the loss a product causes to society after being shipped, other than losses caused by its intrinsic functions.' Taguchi asserted that losses in his definition 'should be restricted to two categories: (1) loss caused by variability of function, and (2) loss caused by harmful side effects.' Taguchi is saying that a product or service has good quality if it 'performs its intended functions without variability, and causes little loss through harmful side effects, including the cost of using it.'" (source) There are obvious shortcomings in this definition with respect to sustainability, but I think the potential is evident.

An interesting project idea: survey the literature on definitions of quality, compose/select a sensible definition for our purposes, and consider the application of quality methods (per, for e.g., Taguchi) to sustainability. A quick googling reveals that this isn't an entirely new idea, but it's also not been pursued as vigorously as it might be.

Focus on Biomimicry and Sustainability

--Ddeluca 11:51, 29 November 2007 (EST) My thoughts -

As biomimicry session chair for the IBE conference, my goal is to get the bio-inspired engineers to understand what biomimicry is and why they should consider Life's Principles in their work. I would like to do this in a very positive way, meaning I want them to feel that biomimicry will enhance thier work and facilitate moving their work from simpy inspired and innovative and into sustainable (or more accurately, regenerative).

I would like to convey that biomimicry uses an "ecological standard" for sustainability. The idea is that nature has already determined what design strategies are sustainable, and these strategies are expressed via the 30+ million species of organsisms that inhabit the earth today. Although these 30+ million species reflect a virtually infinite number of sustainable designs, they can be distilled down to a set of common patterns -- the Patterns of Nature. If our technical designs are based on the patterns of nature, then our designs will be (or at least could be) sustainable.

I'm not sure if/how you might want to weave this into your abstract or presentation, but that is the concept I want to convey.

--Norbert 16:30, 29 November 2007 (EST) Denise, I am not sure that the 'Patterns from Nature' work is classical biomimicry. It does not look at any specific design solutions, as suggested by 'champion adaptors'. At best, it is an attempt to use the Life's Principles as a way to think about problems and generate solutions. I would be very reluctant to suggest that we are distilling patterns from 30+ million species - we simply do not have the raw data (ongoing work by the Biomimicry Guild may help in this). As far as basing technical designs on these patterns, the process may be more important than the content - a pattern language can help bring together a broad range of expertise and perspectives, encourages taking a systems view, and can incorporate content which will guide practitioners towards sustainable/regenerative designs. Based on what I have seen to date, it is not clear whether designs derived from biomimetic content are necessarily more sustainable than other forms of design. We take it as an article of faith that they should be, but other than pointing to the Life's Principles, I do not see us testing designs against any of the metrics that the Quality Assessment team suggested.

That said, I will take another shot at the abstract tonight based on Maibritt's comments, and will make stronger references to robust and resilient biological systems that have demonstrated that sustainability is possible.

Maibritt's Comments

--Maibritt 21:38, 27 November 2007 (EST) I think the rest of the abstract might be better used to describe the project or what the paper will be about and put the pattern language history into an introduction...

(Alexander developed the concept of ‘pattern languages’ ... deal with multiple perspectives and different temporal/spatial scales.) - not sure this is suitable for an abstract?

--Norbert 16:30, 29 November 2007 (EST) Maibritt, I think I was trying to 'hedge my bets', since I am not sure exactly what additional developments we will explore over the next three months. I will try to be a bit more daring and come up with a more explicit paragraph on where I think the project will go based on existing progress. I think at least some of the existing pattern language material is relevant, as I described to Denise. I need to make the rationale clearer.

Damian's Comments

--Damian 10:50, 03 December 2007 (EST) Norbert,

Gave the abstract another read through and I have come to the same conclusion each time; that it really doesn't say what we are trying to do. It states that we want to describe research into a pattern language based on ecosystem principles, but from there doesn't go into any deptha s to the scope of our project. As in, are we explaining /every/ possible pattern in the language that has to do with ecosystems or are we merely describing a subset which satisfies certain criteria.

I think a small blurb on the scope and vision of the outcome is necessary to really firm up the abstract (in my opinion anyway). Other than that I think it is very well written and reads fluidly.

Damian

Damian Rogers, B.Eng MASc PhD Student, Ryerson University