Modelling Boundaries
draft-davis-netmod-modelling-boundaries-03
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Nigel Davis | ||
| Last updated | 2024-09-17 (Latest revision 2024-03-16) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Current modelling techniques appear to have boundaries that make representation of some concepts in modern problems, such as intent and capability, challenging. The concepts all have in common the need to represent uncertainty and vagueness. The challenge results from the rigidity of boundary representation, including the absoluteness of instance value and the process of classification itself, provided by current techniques. When describing solutions, a softer approach seems necessary where the emphasis is on the focus on a particular thing from a particular perspective. Intelligent control (use of AI/ML etc.) could take advantage of partial compatibilities etc. if a softer representation was achieved. The solution representation appears to require * Expression of range, preference and focus as a fundamental part of
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)