Reflective architecture

[RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2]

> OK, folks, this is my latest attempt to define reflection, so get your
> flamethrowers warmed up........err, I mean constructive criticism.
> 
hmm...  pyromania.  :)

> In fact, for a given system, we should start with the boundaries between
> objects (abstractions), including their nested structure, being chosen for
> easy understanding by the user.  This initial topology is also convenient
> because it is completely platform- independent.  Initially set each object
> as a decentral node of information flow, all with equal priority.  Then
> begin observing where information flows.  The paths that are frequently
> travelled by information can be combined, and abstracted:  effectively
> creating a completely different set of objects.  These are system-objects,
> and they are a result of: the user-objects which serve as the
> specification for the tools in the system; the user's habits and
> preferences, which impact the ways in which tools are used, and the flow
> of information between them; and the hardware platform.  If any of these
> aspects change, the system-objects should be changed to adapt. 
> 
I knew it!  You came up with just the right point about my short
introduction on the object / message paradigm for computation!  Fantastic!
Notice that this problem is quite NP-hard, and so requires some fancy
thinking, or at least a random-number generator for the system to make
"intuitive leaps".  The point is that the discrete events you would like to
manage in this system (vis information flow) are exactly the object /
message paradigm.

> User-objects are the medium by which the user to controls and communicates
> with the system.  User-objects are easier to understand than
> system-objects, because user-objects are specifically designed around the
> way humans think.  System-objects are much harder to understand, but their
> structure corresponds with the way people think.  Also, user-objects
> contain more information, because some information is lost during
> translation to machine architectures.  Each time the system regenerates
> the system-objects, different parts of the user-objects may be used. 
> 
I disagree about the system objects containing less information.  That's
just an artifact of computing tradition to leave the information density in
'user space'.  If we had a set of objects designed to come up with ways of
explaining things to the user in various ways, then we could probably easily
connect the user with the kind of information they want to know about the
system.  The system object idea that you have would probably only be a
partially-evaluated version of some high-level user objects.  The best way I
can think of to explain it would probably be that the mathematical
operations that the usual kernel has in its code to make it work are the
focal point for your 'loss of information during translation'.  I think that
with an adequate construction by user objects of mathematical systems, that
information would stay intact, and be used as a 'user guide' to explaining
how the system relates to the hardware.

> We call such a system reflective, because the system-objects reflect the
> user-objects.  A kernel architecture (and other architectures) presumes a
> particular information flow among objects.  In a reflective system,
> nothing about topology is presumed, so the maximum freedom in architecture
> can be achieved. 
> 
I think that this last statement still needs work in explaining how the
system objects reflect the user objects.  You may want to say that the
reflective system contains its assumptions as first-order objects or
something, and that reflection includes the ability to create environments
from those assumptions.

> The actual reflection process, or creating system-objects from
> user-objects, need not be solely a manual nor automatic process.  Ideally,
> the user and system cooperate in the process, because the system cannot
> consider as many possibilities or come up with new approaches, and the
> user cannot continuously repeat trivial actions. 
> 
That sounds like the linear system (computational device) vs nonlinear
system (human mind) that I was talking about before.  Is that the idea?