Federated Embedded Systems – a review of the literature in related fields

This report is concerned with the vision of smart interconnected objects, a vision that has attracted much attention lately. In this paper, embedded, interconnected, open, and heterogeneous control systems are in focus, formally referred to as Federated Embedded Systems. To place FES into a context, a review of some related research directions is presented. This review includes such concepts as systems of systems, cyber-physical systems, ubiquitous computing, internet of things, and multi-agent systems. Interestingly, the reviewed fields seem to overlap with each other in an increasing number of ways

Knowledge-based vision and simple visual machines

The vast majority of work in machine vision emphasizes the representation of perceived objects and events: it is these internal representations that incorporate the 'knowledge' in knowledge-based vision or form the 'models' in model-based vision. In this paper, we discuss simple machine vision systems developed by artificial evolution rather than traditional engineering design techniques, and note that the task of identifying internal representations within such systems is made difficult by the lack of an operational definition of representation at the causal mechanistic level. Consequently, we question the nature and indeed the existence of representations posited to be used within natural vision systems (i.e. animals). We conclude that representations argued for on a priori grounds by external observers of a particular vision system may well be illusory, and are at best place-holders for yet-to-be-identified causal mechanistic interactions. That is, applying the knowledge-based vision approach in the understanding of evolved systems (machines or animals) may well lead to theories and models that are internally consistent, computationally plausible, and entirely wrong

Part 1: a process view of nature. Multifunctional integration and the role of the construction agent

This is the first of two linked articles which draw s on emerging understanding in the field of biology and seeks to communicate it to those of construction, engineering and design. Its insight is that nature 'works' at the process level, where neither function nor form are distinctions, and materialisation is both the act of negotiating limited resource and encoding matter as 'memory', to sustain and integrate processes through time. It explores how biological agents derive work by creating 'interfaces' between adjacent locations as membranes, through feedback. Through the tension between simultaneous aggregation and disaggregation of matter by agents with opposing objectives, many functions are integrated into an interface as it unfolds. Significantly, biological agents induce flow and counterflow conditions within biological interfaces, by inducing phase transition responses in the matte r or energy passing through them, driving steep gradients from weak potentials (i.e. shorter distances and larger surfaces). As with biological agents, computing, programming and, increasingly digital sensor and effector technologies share the same 'agency' and are thus convergent

Part 2: pushing the envelope. A process perspective for architecture, engineering and construction

In this article, I am building on an emerging 'process view of nature' and how biological membranes emerge through the combined action of (locally) autonomous construction agents. In Part 1, we considered the simultaneous aggregation and disaggregation of matter around embedded processes, used to create, sustain and regulate matter, energy and information gradients from which 'work' is derived for the benefit of the agents or organisms present in the system. In Part 2, I intend to demonstrate that emerging digital design, simulation and fabrication techniques, when linked to sensory and effector feedback, memory and actions, directed by pre-encoded objectives (as rules or algorithms), produce the same fundamental unit of 'agency' as biological agents possess. By understanding how biological membranes emerge in nature, as the outcome of 'negotiated agency', to regulate matter, energy and information exchange between adjacent spaces, we can begin to consider the building envelope as a biological interface or membrane from which 'work' can be derived from the environment we inhabit, as a physiological extension of ourselves