Visioneering a socioeconomics research information system
76 views
Skip to first unread message
Poor Richard
Oct 19, 2012, 5:36:08 AM10/19/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
I
hope no one will mind if I indulge in a little visioneering here. I am
imagining an information system of socioeconomic practice and research. The P2P
collaborative economy, free culture, and new commons movements are
creating a lot of digital content. Most is in discursive and narrative
form that is time consuming to read. Among this volume of content, besides philosophical discourse, are
case studies in a variety of formats (many very informal), business
plans, proposals, and presumably many legal documents (charters,
agreements, etc.).
I am imagining a semantic ontology according
to which the key ideas and data of this content could be parsed and
tagged to form a distributed database using semantic linked-data
structures. This would help transition the collective knowledge base of
the social research, activist, and social entrepreneurcommunities into a machine-readable, semantically linked, and searchable form. A fringe benefit of creating such data structures for existing content
would be to provide common templates for future content creation and
data collection.
The P2P Foundation Wiki is an excellent searchable resource, and
perhaps the semantic wiki extensions for the wiki engine could
eventually be applied. "A semantic wiki is a wiki that has an underlying
model of the knowledge described in its pages. Regular, or syntactic,
wikis have structured text and untyped hyperlinks. Semantic wikis, on
the other hand, provide the ability to capture or identify information
about the data within pages, and the relationships between pages, in
ways that can be queried or exported like a database." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_wiki
Some of the tools I've looked at for creating ontologies at the concept level are mindmap, prezi, pearltrees, and debategraph.
While
I'm finding debategraph difficult to master, I like its capability to
define crossliinks between nodes, a capability absent from many idea
graphing/mapping tools using the "tree" metaphor. I created a simple
debategraph for my "hex model" for modeling socioeconomic commons here: http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=231296&iv=09mac=231299-231300-231298-231296-231303-231304-231302- (note: if the graph window is empty at first, try refreshing your browser)
You
have to go around and click on all the nodes before the cross links are
shown in the graph. That's one example of the problems with the
interface. You should be able to easily select a view where all that
information is included.
Debategraph
might be suitable for designing ontologies at the conceptual level if
it were easier to use. Things like Delicious or Diigo are good tools for
creating folksonomies via tagging, but a folksonomy is just a
vocabulary or word list without any organizational substructure. What is
needed is more like a nested tree/outline format to turn a folksonomy
into an ontology. Debategraph has this, plus the valuable crosslink
feature, but it lacks the convenient browser "bookmark bar" button to
capture content into the graph the way pearltrees, delicious, and diigo
can do.
None
of this goes any farther towards creating open linked-data structures,
either. I am focused on the ontology design first, but perhaps there are
tools that cover both bases that I'm not aware of yet.
Another
part of the "research information system" I am visioneering is pattern
detection and recognition. An ontology gives us a set of semantically
charged patterns. Then what we need is a pattern language with which to
parse existing content and match it with our ontology. I am thinking of
something like the "regular expressions" used in the old unix text
editors or in the Pearl and Awk programming languages I once used. http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Regular+expressions
Helene Finidori's Exploring Alternatives pearltree: http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-fa=5509379&N-s=1_5509379&N-u=1_558656&N-p=50149783&N-play=0&N-f=1_5509379&N-revealI
hope no one will mind if I indulge in a little visioneering here. I am
imagining an information system of socioeconomic practice and research. The P2P
collaborative economy, free culture, and new commons movements are
creating a lot of digital content. Most is in discursive and narrative
form that is time consuming to read. Among this volume of content, besides philosophical discourse, are
case studies in a variety of formats (many very informal), business
plans, proposals, and presumably many legal documents (charters,
agreements, etc.).
I am imagining a semantic ontology according to which the key ideas and data of this content could be parsed and tagged to form a distributed database using semantic linked-data structures. This would help transition the collective knowledge base of the social research, activist, and social entrepreneur
I am imagining a semantic ontology according to which the key ideas and data of this content could be parsed and tagged to form a distributed database using semantic linked-data structures. This would help transition the collective knowledge base of the social research, activist, and social entrepreneur
communities into a machine-readable, semantically linked, and searchable form. A fringe benefit of creating such data structures for existing content
would be to provide common templates for future content creation and
data collection.
The P2P Foundation Wiki is an excellent searchable resource, and perhaps the semantic wiki extensions for the wiki engine could eventually be applied. "A semantic wiki is a wiki that has an underlying model of the knowledge described in its pages. Regular, or syntactic, wikis have structured text and untyped hyperlinks. Semantic wikis, on the other hand, provide the ability to capture or identify information about the data within pages, and the relationships between pages, in ways that can be queried or exported like a database." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_wiki
Some of the tools I've looked at for creating ontologies at the concept level are mindmap, prezi, pearltrees, and debategraph.
While I'm finding debategraph difficult to master, I like its capability to define crossliinks between nodes, a capability absent from many idea graphing/mapping tools using the "tree" metaphor. I created a simple debategraph for my "hex model" for modeling socioeconomic commons here: http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=231296&iv=09mac=231299-231300-231298-231296-231303-231304-231302- (note: if the graph window is empty at first, try refreshing your browser)
You have to go around and click on all the nodes before the cross links are shown in the graph. That's one example of the problems with the interface. You should be able to easily select a view where all that information is included.
Debategraph might be suitable for designing ontologies at the conceptual level if it were easier to use. Things like Delicious or Diigo are good tools for creating folksonomies via tagging, but a folksonomy is just a vocabulary or word list without any organizational substructure. What is needed is more like a nested tree/outline format to turn a folksonomy into an ontology. Debategraph has this, plus the valuable crosslink feature, but it lacks the convenient browser "bookmark bar" button to capture content into the graph the way pearltrees, delicious, and diigo can do.
None of this goes any farther towards creating open linked-data structures, either. I am focused on the ontology design first, but perhaps there are tools that cover both bases that I'm not aware of yet.
Another part of the "research information system" I am visioneering is pattern detection and recognition. An ontology gives us a set of semantically charged patterns. Then what we need is a pattern language with which to parse existing content and match it with our ontology. I am thinking of something like the "regular expressions" used in the old unix text editors or in the Pearl and Awk programming languages I once used. http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Regular+expressions
The P2P Foundation Wiki is an excellent searchable resource, and perhaps the semantic wiki extensions for the wiki engine could eventually be applied. "A semantic wiki is a wiki that has an underlying model of the knowledge described in its pages. Regular, or syntactic, wikis have structured text and untyped hyperlinks. Semantic wikis, on the other hand, provide the ability to capture or identify information about the data within pages, and the relationships between pages, in ways that can be queried or exported like a database." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_wiki
Some of the tools I've looked at for creating ontologies at the concept level are mindmap, prezi, pearltrees, and debategraph.
While I'm finding debategraph difficult to master, I like its capability to define crossliinks between nodes, a capability absent from many idea graphing/mapping tools using the "tree" metaphor. I created a simple debategraph for my "hex model" for modeling socioeconomic commons here: http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=231296&iv=09mac=231299-231300-231298-231296-231303-231304-231302- (note: if the graph window is empty at first, try refreshing your browser)
You have to go around and click on all the nodes before the cross links are shown in the graph. That's one example of the problems with the interface. You should be able to easily select a view where all that information is included.
Debategraph might be suitable for designing ontologies at the conceptual level if it were easier to use. Things like Delicious or Diigo are good tools for creating folksonomies via tagging, but a folksonomy is just a vocabulary or word list without any organizational substructure. What is needed is more like a nested tree/outline format to turn a folksonomy into an ontology. Debategraph has this, plus the valuable crosslink feature, but it lacks the convenient browser "bookmark bar" button to capture content into the graph the way pearltrees, delicious, and diigo can do.
None of this goes any farther towards creating open linked-data structures, either. I am focused on the ontology design first, but perhaps there are tools that cover both bases that I'm not aware of yet.
Another part of the "research information system" I am visioneering is pattern detection and recognition. An ontology gives us a set of semantically charged patterns. Then what we need is a pattern language with which to parse existing content and match it with our ontology. I am thinking of something like the "regular expressions" used in the old unix text editors or in the Pearl and Awk programming languages I once used. http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Regular+expressions
- P2P Foundation "Everything Open and Free" Prezi: http://prezi.com/tlsiltvngctq/everything-open-and-free/
Shawn Murphy
Oct 19, 2012, 4:22:20 PM10/19/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Hi Richard (and all):
Take a look at my pages, starting here:
for a sense of what my associates and I are building.
The sorts of capabilities you describe fall out of the tech we are building. It is essentially an ecosystem for knowledge (and the software and visualization tools that work with it). It is under active development, initial release gated by my ability for focus on it instead of needing to attend to sustaining income generation. In other words: donations/support appreciated! At the moment, collaboration is less required while I build out the small but intricate kernel. The architecture is: a distributed knowledge representation layer supporting an ontology-driven rapid web application development environment, the whole thing made self-organizing by a muscular collaborative filtering system.
Thoughts?
Fabio Barone
Oct 19, 2012, 4:37:05 PM10/19/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
I responded to Poor Richard in another thread like this:
[...] I have been thinking a while around such ideas. Ontology (e.g. using OWL) as proposed academically has some drawbacks, as it would imply everybody to share and adopt the same ontology. This looks rather difficult.
Without going too much into details, I have been imagining some very different approach. By my observation, collective intelligence works best when it is decoupled in time and space – distributed. As an example, as a bread job I have been implementing a web site recently. For all the pieces I could not immediately find a solution, I browsed the web and found the information I need – from PHP details, to CSS, to javascript. That is standard practice developing and collective intelligence at best.
Another great example is twitter. At its heart are short messages. Like lego pieces. It’s then up to minds to actually mesh-up tweets, make links, etc.
So I am imagining an approach similar to this instead of some kind of platform for a next step. We already know the power of folksonomies, and there are great tools like Diigo out there. The problem is these are non-linked data with limited capabilities for harnessing.
I am thinking of a tagging folksonomy approach which would enrich or publish data to RDF. Having RDF data we than can re-map all this data semantically. We can tag data with geo-tags, and visualize them on maps. They can be tagged in other forms to visualize differently (e.g. connections between projects, groups, etc.). We can tag videos and pictures to make them searchable, etc. People could come up with countless new ways of visualizing data – where Visual Y would pick up…
Interested in opinions if this makes sense. Thanks for reading.
2012/10/19 Poor Richard <poor.r...@gmail.com>
Nathan Rixham
Oct 19, 2012, 6:00:25 PM10/19/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Yes, it makes sense, if that is, the following makes sense:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Oct/0031.html
There are many people, with the same vision, in multiple domains,
directly and indirectly linked to the one you discuss. The semantic web,
linked data, owl, and rdf generalize and make the data universal, all we
need to do now is get used to working with uniform webized data to build
web apps in a read-write web style, as per
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CloudStorage.html
apologies for the brevity in such an interesting discussion, and best
regards,
Nathan
Fabio Barone wrote:
> I responded to Poor Richard in another thread like this:
>
> [...] I have been thinking a while around such ideas. Ontology (e.g. using
> OWL) as proposed academically has some drawbacks, as it would imply
> everybody to share and adopt the same ontology. This looks rather
> difficult.
>
> Without going too much into details, I have been imagining some very
> different approach. By my observation, collective intelligence works best
> when it is decoupled in time and space � distributed. As an example, as a
>> queried or exported like a database." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
>> Semantic_wiki <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_wiki>
>> mac=231299-231300-231298-231296-231303-231304-231302<http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=231296&iv=09&mac=231299-231300-231298-231296-231303-231304-231302>
>> - (note: if the graph window is empty at first, try refreshing your
>> Alternatives pearltree:
>> http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-fa=5509379&N-s=1_5509379&N-u=1_558656&N-p=50149783&N-play=0&N-f=1_5509379&N-reveal
>>
>> - P2P Foundation "Everything Open and Free" Prezi:
>> http://prezi.com/tlsiltvngctq/everything-open-and-free/
>>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprezi.com%2Ftlsiltvngctq%2Feverything-open-and-free%2F&h=yAQF4dW2i&s=1>
>> *Everything open and free by Lily Fisher on Prezi<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprezi.com%2Ftlsiltvngctq%2Feverything-open-and-free%2F&h=XAQFlQHEDAQFVyy2Q0V4Mcc_aOB7iYJk43C9tIiMtNkiMkA&s=1>
>> *
>>
>>
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Oct/0031.html
There are many people, with the same vision, in multiple domains,
directly and indirectly linked to the one you discuss. The semantic web,
linked data, owl, and rdf generalize and make the data universal, all we
need to do now is get used to working with uniform webized data to build
web apps in a read-write web style, as per
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CloudStorage.html
apologies for the brevity in such an interesting discussion, and best
regards,
Nathan
Fabio Barone wrote:
> I responded to Poor Richard in another thread like this:
>
> [...] I have been thinking a while around such ideas. Ontology (e.g. using
> OWL) as proposed academically has some drawbacks, as it would imply
> everybody to share and adopt the same ontology. This looks rather
> difficult.
>
> Without going too much into details, I have been imagining some very
> different approach. By my observation, collective intelligence works best
> bread job I have been implementing a web site recently. For all the pieces
> I could not immediately find a solution, I browsed the web and found the
> information I need � from PHP details, to CSS, to javascript. That is
> I could not immediately find a solution, I browsed the web and found the
> standard practice developing and collective intelligence at best.
>
> Another great example is twitter. At its heart are short messages. Like
> lego pieces. It�s then up to minds to actually mesh-up tweets, make links,
>
> Another great example is twitter. At its heart are short messages. Like
> etc.
>
> So I am imagining an approach similar to this instead of some kind of
> platform for a next step. We already know the power of folksonomies, and
> there are great tools like Diigo out there. The problem is these are
> non-linked data with limited capabilities for harnessing.
>
> I am thinking of a tagging folksonomy approach which would enrich or
> publish data to RDF. Having RDF data we than can re-map all this data
> semantically. We can tag data with geo-tags, and visualize them on maps.
> They can be tagged in other forms to visualize differently (e.g.
> connections between projects, groups, etc.). We can tag videos and pictures
> to make them searchable, etc. People could come up with countless new ways
> of visualizing data � where Visual Y would pick up�
>
> So I am imagining an approach similar to this instead of some kind of
> platform for a next step. We already know the power of folksonomies, and
> there are great tools like Diigo out there. The problem is these are
> non-linked data with limited capabilities for harnessing.
>
> I am thinking of a tagging folksonomy approach which would enrich or
> publish data to RDF. Having RDF data we than can re-map all this data
> semantically. We can tag data with geo-tags, and visualize them on maps.
> They can be tagged in other forms to visualize differently (e.g.
> connections between projects, groups, etc.). We can tag videos and pictures
> to make them searchable, etc. People could come up with countless new ways
>> Semantic_wiki <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_wiki>
>>
>> Some of the tools I've looked at for creating ontologies at the concept
>> level are mindmap, prezi, pearltrees, and debategraph.
>>
>> While I'm finding debategraph difficult to master, I like its capability
>> to define crossliinks between nodes, a capability absent from many idea
>> graphing/mapping tools using the "tree" metaphor. I created a simple
>> debategraph for my "hex model<http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/wtf-is-the-hex-model/>"
>> Some of the tools I've looked at for creating ontologies at the concept
>> level are mindmap, prezi, pearltrees, and debategraph.
>>
>> While I'm finding debategraph difficult to master, I like its capability
>> to define crossliinks between nodes, a capability absent from many idea
>> graphing/mapping tools using the "tree" metaphor. I created a simple
>> for modeling socioeconomic commons here:
>> http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=231296&iv=09<http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=231296&iv=09&mac=231299-231300-231298-231296-231303-231304-231302>
>> mac=231299-231300-231298-231296-231303-231304-231302<http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=231296&iv=09&mac=231299-231300-231298-231296-231303-231304-231302>
>> - (note: if the graph window is empty at first, try refreshing your
>> browser)
>>
>> You have to go around and click on all the nodes before the cross links
>> are shown in the graph. That's one example of the problems with the
>> interface. You should be able to easily select a view where all that
>> information is included.
>>
>> Debategraph might be suitable for designing ontologies at the conceptual
>> level if it were easier to use. Things like Delicious or Diigo are good
>> tools for creating folksonomies via tagging, but a folksonomy is just a
>> vocabulary or word list without any organizational substructure. What is
>> needed is more like a nested tree/outline format to turn a folksonomy into
>> an ontology. Debategraph has this, plus the valuable crosslink feature, but
>> it lacks the convenient browser "bookmark bar" button to capture content
>> into the graph the way pearltrees, delicious, and diigo can do.
>>
>> None of this goes any farther towards creating open linked-data
>> structures, either. I am focused on the ontology design first, but perhaps
>> there are tools that cover both bases that I'm not aware of yet.
>>
>> Another part of the "research information system" I am visioneering is
>> pattern detection and recognition. An ontology gives us a set of
>> semantically charged patterns. Then what we need is a pattern language with
>> which to parse existing content and match it with our ontology. I am
>> thinking of something like the "regular expressions" used in the old unix
>> text editors or in the Pearl and Awk programming languages I once used.
>> http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Regular+expressions
>>
>> Helene Finidori <https://www.facebook.com/helene.finidori>'s Exploring
>>
>> You have to go around and click on all the nodes before the cross links
>> are shown in the graph. That's one example of the problems with the
>> interface. You should be able to easily select a view where all that
>> information is included.
>>
>> Debategraph might be suitable for designing ontologies at the conceptual
>> level if it were easier to use. Things like Delicious or Diigo are good
>> tools for creating folksonomies via tagging, but a folksonomy is just a
>> vocabulary or word list without any organizational substructure. What is
>> needed is more like a nested tree/outline format to turn a folksonomy into
>> an ontology. Debategraph has this, plus the valuable crosslink feature, but
>> it lacks the convenient browser "bookmark bar" button to capture content
>> into the graph the way pearltrees, delicious, and diigo can do.
>>
>> None of this goes any farther towards creating open linked-data
>> structures, either. I am focused on the ontology design first, but perhaps
>> there are tools that cover both bases that I'm not aware of yet.
>>
>> Another part of the "research information system" I am visioneering is
>> pattern detection and recognition. An ontology gives us a set of
>> semantically charged patterns. Then what we need is a pattern language with
>> which to parse existing content and match it with our ontology. I am
>> thinking of something like the "regular expressions" used in the old unix
>> text editors or in the Pearl and Awk programming languages I once used.
>> http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Regular+expressions
>>
>> Alternatives pearltree:
>> http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-fa=5509379&N-s=1_5509379&N-u=1_558656&N-p=50149783&N-play=0&N-f=1_5509379&N-reveal
>>
>> - P2P Foundation "Everything Open and Free" Prezi:
>> http://prezi.com/tlsiltvngctq/everything-open-and-free/
>>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprezi.com%2Ftlsiltvngctq%2Feverything-open-and-free%2F&h=yAQF4dW2i&s=1>
>> *Everything open and free by Lily Fisher on Prezi<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprezi.com%2Ftlsiltvngctq%2Feverything-open-and-free%2F&h=XAQFlQHEDAQFVyy2Q0V4Mcc_aOB7iYJk43C9tIiMtNkiMkA&s=1>
>> *
>>
>>
>
Poor Richard
Oct 19, 2012, 9:04:36 PM10/19/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Shawn,
Your capabilities and approach look very apropos for our collaborative needs. I wish I could I chip in some dough for the project. I'll circulate this.
Regards,
PR--
Poor Richard's Almanack 2.0
There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (anon)
Your capabilities and approach look very apropos for our collaborative needs. I wish I could I chip in some dough for the project. I'll circulate this.
Regards,
PR
Poor Richard's Almanack 2.0
There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (anon)
Poor Richard
Oct 19, 2012, 9:28:08 PM10/19/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Fabio,
Your approach makes plenty of sense for a large class of users out there, but probably wouldn't be the perfect solution for some of the groups I'm working with right now. (Contrary opinions anyone?)
As Nathan mentions, others are talking about & working on similar approaches.
May the force be with us all,
PR
Your approach makes plenty of sense for a large class of users out there, but probably wouldn't be the perfect solution for some of the groups I'm working with right now. (Contrary opinions anyone?)
As Nathan mentions, others are talking about & working on similar approaches.
May the force be with us all,
PR
Poor Richard
Oct 19, 2012, 9:36:01 PM10/19/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Hi Nathan,
Geez, did Tim Berners-Lee design EVERYthing?
Geez, did Tim Berners-Lee design EVERYthing?
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Rixham <nri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it makes sense, if that is, the following makes sense:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Oct/0031.html
There are many people, with the same vision, in multiple domains, directly and indirectly linked to the one you discuss. The semantic web, linked data, owl, and rdf generalize and make the data universal, all we need to do now is get used to working with uniform webized data to build web apps in a read-write web style, as per http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CloudStorage.html
apologies for the brevity in such an interesting discussion, and best regards,
Nathan
Fabio Barone wrote:
I responded to Poor Richard in another thread like this:
[...] I have been thinking a while around such ideas. Ontology (e.g. using
OWL) as proposed academically has some drawbacks, as it would imply
everybody to share and adopt the same ontology. This looks rather
difficult.
Without going too much into details, I have been imagining some very
different approach. By my observation, collective intelligence works best
when it is decoupled in time and space – distributed. As an example, as a
bread job I have been implementing a web site recently. For all the pieces
I could not immediately find a solution, I browsed the web and found the
information I need – from PHP details, to CSS, to javascript. That is
standard practice developing and collective intelligence at best.
Another great example is twitter. At its heart are short messages. Like
lego pieces. It’s then up to minds to actually mesh-up tweets, make links,
etc.
So I am imagining an approach similar to this instead of some kind of
platform for a next step. We already know the power of folksonomies, and
there are great tools like Diigo out there. The problem is these are
non-linked data with limited capabilities for harnessing.
I am thinking of a tagging folksonomy approach which would enrich or
publish data to RDF. Having RDF data we than can re-map all this data
semantically. We can tag data with geo-tags, and visualize them on maps.
They can be tagged in other forms to visualize differently (e.g.
connections between projects, groups, etc.). We can tag videos and pictures
to make them searchable, etc. People could come up with countless new ways
of visualizing data – where Visual Y would pick up…
OpenPrivacy
Nov 1, 2012, 1:52:40 PM11/1/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,
On Friday, October 19, 2012 5:36:08 AM UTC-4, Poor Richard wrote:
I'll probably join you in some visioneering, but mine will be pure handwaving: I agree with @tawnuac who would "enrich or publish data to RDF" as I think that centralized taxonomies will always fall short for some segment of the population. But we all belong to multiple communities, each of which may have it's own "language" for describing elements of the world they are most interested in. As such, we choose to place more attention on car care from our automotive club and child care from our family and school moms we trust. Therein lies the key: the trust we place in different people and communities is domain specific, and as mentioned above, the very definition of "domain" may vary from person to person. In the above examples, "car care" communities will vary depending upon whether I drive a '70 VW microbus or a '12 Lexus RX Hybrid, and "child care" communities will vary if I have a toddler or a tween. And of course, the levels of trust we assign even to similar communities is a very personal matter.
So my thinking is that at the (decentralized) core of a decentralized community will be a collection of personalized and community-centric trust metrics. Switching point of view, I believe what we need to design are secure, open source "Reputation Calculation Engines" (RCE) that operate on collections of digitally signed RDF triples (or "reputes"). Note that the digital signatures can come from anonymous or pseudonymous sources, but they are essential in calculating reputation to prevent spoofs, floods, etc. An RCE will in general ignore - or provide less weight to - reputes that come from short-lived anonymous sources, and apply greater reputation strength to sources signed from reputable sources.
Note that any addressible object in this reputation-based economy - from signatures to care repair companies to RCEs - can have their own domain-specific reputes attached to them. I expect there will be some very well-known RCEs, and Google-like search engines that can point you to those most trusted, but as we are all different, we can each have our private RCEs that assign X reputation to RCE1 and Y reputation to RCE2 within any domain, and further increase reputation for some signatures and decrease others. IMO, only when each of us is in charge of who we trust - and we don't have trust dictated to us - can a decentralized, privacy-enhanced system work.
On Friday, October 19, 2012 5:36:08 AM UTC-4, Poor Richard wrote:
I hope no one will mind if I indulge in a little visioneering here.
I'll probably join you in some visioneering, but mine will be pure handwaving: I agree with @tawnuac who would "enrich or publish data to RDF" as I think that centralized taxonomies will always fall short for some segment of the population. But we all belong to multiple communities, each of which may have it's own "language" for describing elements of the world they are most interested in. As such, we choose to place more attention on car care from our automotive club and child care from our family and school moms we trust. Therein lies the key: the trust we place in different people and communities is domain specific, and as mentioned above, the very definition of "domain" may vary from person to person. In the above examples, "car care" communities will vary depending upon whether I drive a '70 VW microbus or a '12 Lexus RX Hybrid, and "child care" communities will vary if I have a toddler or a tween. And of course, the levels of trust we assign even to similar communities is a very personal matter.
So my thinking is that at the (decentralized) core of a decentralized community will be a collection of personalized and community-centric trust metrics. Switching point of view, I believe what we need to design are secure, open source "Reputation Calculation Engines" (RCE) that operate on collections of digitally signed RDF triples (or "reputes"). Note that the digital signatures can come from anonymous or pseudonymous sources, but they are essential in calculating reputation to prevent spoofs, floods, etc. An RCE will in general ignore - or provide less weight to - reputes that come from short-lived anonymous sources, and apply greater reputation strength to sources signed from reputable sources.
Note that any addressible object in this reputation-based economy - from signatures to care repair companies to RCEs - can have their own domain-specific reputes attached to them. I expect there will be some very well-known RCEs, and Google-like search engines that can point you to those most trusted, but as we are all different, we can each have our private RCEs that assign X reputation to RCE1 and Y reputation to RCE2 within any domain, and further increase reputation for some signatures and decrease others. IMO, only when each of us is in charge of who we trust - and we don't have trust dictated to us - can a decentralized, privacy-enhanced system work.
Fabio Cecin
Nov 1, 2012, 2:06:41 PM11/1/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM, OpenPrivacy <fen.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that centralized taxonomies will always fall short for some
> segment of the population. But we all belong to multiple communities, each
> of which may have it's own "language" for describing elements of the world
> they are most interested in.
Let me throw some (wet?) logs into the fire:
> I think that centralized taxonomies will always fall short for some
> segment of the population. But we all belong to multiple communities, each
> of which may have it's own "language" for describing elements of the world
> they are most interested in.
The problem of having a base language that unifies the communication
of all living beings on this planet, not just "humans," is already
permanently solved: it's called physics.
The problem with physics is that it hurts. An argument, a
demonstration or assertion at that level of "language" is of the sort:
"I eat you." "Take that." Etc. Painful, costly, suffering-inducing. We
can do better. We can also do worse.
We have these things called minds, and "language," or mental language,
which is a virtual language embedded inside of the language of
physics. The good news is that it can help us, if we're all good
"programmers" or "developers" (of the mind/brain). The bad news is
that it can backfire, if we all act like clueless junior hackers.
I really like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_System
We don't need ontologies/languages (the mental stuff) to be perfect.
Anything that falls through its cracks, falls into where all this
virtualization comes from, which is the physical realm. That is OK. It
just has to be sorted in a way that it is proven to be a positive
contribution that can evolve over time and that increases in value as
it increases in content size, instead of the opposite.
Fabio
Fen Labalme
Nov 1, 2012, 3:11:01 PM11/1/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Fabio Cecin <fce...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM, OpenPrivacy <fen.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that centralized taxonomies will always fall short for some
> segment of the population. But we all belong to multiple communities, each
> of which may have it's own "language" for describing elements of the world
> they are most interested in.
The problem of having a base language that unifies the communication
of all living beings on this planet, not just "humans," is already
permanently solved: it's called physics.
I might have said 'math is the iniversal language'. But as Google knows, any language can be improved upon.
As you likely know, the results returned from a Google search for X are different for you and me, but probably more similar to each other's than to a 12-year-old making the same search in Zimbabwe. It's because Google tried to build a unique 'frame of reference' for each of us and provide the most useful results in each case. I'm just suggesting that we should enjoy this *and* have the ability to opt out of it (search anonymously, as with ddg.gg) as well as create our own, personal 'frame of reference'.
--
CivicActions.com
http://xri.net/=Fen.Labalme
Fabio Cecin
Nov 1, 2012, 5:41:45 PM11/1/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Fen Labalme <f...@openprivacy.org> wrote:
> I might have said 'math is the iniversal language'. But as Google knows,
> any language can be improved upon.
>
> As you likely know, the results returned from a Google search for X are
> different for you and me, but probably more similar to each other's than to
> a 12-year-old making the same search in Zimbabwe. It's because Google tried
> to build a unique 'frame of reference' for each of us and provide the most
> useful results in each case. I'm just suggesting that we should enjoy this
> *and* have the ability to opt out of it (search anonymously, as with ddg.gg)
> as well as create our own, personal 'frame of reference'.
I'm toying with the idea that every system of thought that I support
> I might have said 'math is the iniversal language'. But as Google knows,
> any language can be improved upon.
>
> As you likely know, the results returned from a Google search for X are
> different for you and me, but probably more similar to each other's than to
> a 12-year-old making the same search in Zimbabwe. It's because Google tried
> to build a unique 'frame of reference' for each of us and provide the most
> useful results in each case. I'm just suggesting that we should enjoy this
> *and* have the ability to opt out of it (search anonymously, as with ddg.gg)
> as well as create our own, personal 'frame of reference'.
should come with an explicit warning similar to the following:
"Welcome! I'm hope I'm useful to you. Please be advised: I'm a
model, a fiction, a creation, and I cannot express within myself
whether I'm final or true in any absolute sense. Any "absolute truth"
that could possibly exist, and that you would then proceed to think
"is" me, is probably not me, but your own powers of analogy mapping me
to the truth that you see, that you feel, that you experience or that
you yourself are. Maybe other things similar to me make this claim to
truth, but I don't, so relax. If you ever forget, come back to this
introduction."
If every "bible," or software system, or system of thought, or
knowledge repository of any kind, started with something like this, it
would eliminate a lot of confusion, I think, and would ease the
pressure of whether what's being created has a "finality" or "truth"
that matches its upcoming popularity. If a living being finds itself
mentally trapped inside of one of these things, they can use their own
trappedness to find the way out, as every axiom if followed would
ultimately point back to this single absolute ruling axiom. For that
to happen, all that is required is that the system is internally
consistent so that it can be used to escape itself, not that it is
"final" or "true" in any absolute sense.
Then again, *that* notion *is* a system of thought! :-) How to
disclaim the disclaimer of the disclaimer of the disclaimer ... Gaah!
Fabio
Fen Labalme
Nov 1, 2012, 6:15:24 PM11/1/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Getting pulled into philosophy...
You can't change the world, but you can change your perception of the world.
And if you can change your perception of the world, then you can change the world.
Now back you your regularly scheduled New Net conference,
=Fen
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Fabio Cecin <fce...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then again, *that* notion *is* a system of thought! :-) How to
disclaim the disclaimer of the disclaimer of the disclaimer ... Gaah!
And if you can change your perception of the world, then you can change the world.
Now back you your regularly scheduled New Net conference,
=Fen
Mark Adam
Nov 1, 2012, 7:16:04 PM11/1/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Fen Labalme <f...@openprivacy.org> wrote:
> Getting pulled into philosophy...
to be this way, otherwise we can and must change the world.... :^)
Mark
> Getting pulled into philosophy...
> You can't change the world, but you can change your perception of the world.
> And if you can change your perception of the world, then you can change the
> world.
You can't change the world ...without knowing the Truth of how it got
> And if you can change your perception of the world, then you can change the
> world.
to be this way, otherwise we can and must change the world.... :^)
Mark
Fabio Barone
Nov 2, 2012, 9:44:09 AM11/2/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
that's why I think the proposal of RDF enriched folksonomies
have merit and may address these issues.
It's not a platform.
It's not a unified language / ontology.
It's not trying to change/save the world.
And yes, it wouldn't be perfect and solve all problems.
It's leaving to folks to make new meaning out of data - changing perceptions, making new links, and maybe changing the world...
have merit and may address these issues.
It's not a platform.
It's not a unified language / ontology.
It's not trying to change/save the world.
And yes, it wouldn't be perfect and solve all problems.
It's leaving to folks to make new meaning out of data - changing perceptions, making new links, and maybe changing the world...
2012/11/1 Mark Adam <dreamin...@gmail.com>
Fen Labalme
Nov 2, 2012, 10:25:46 AM11/2/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Fabio Barone <holon...@gmail.com> wrote:
that's why I think the proposal of RDF enriched folksonomies
have merit and may address these issues.
It's not a platform.
It's not a unified language / ontology.
It's not trying to change/save the world.
And yes, it wouldn't be perfect and solve all problems.
It's leaving to folks to make new meaning out of data - changing perceptions, making new links, and maybe changing the world...
Totally agree. Just add a digital sig (or any unique hash) to each RDF triple <http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-971002/#signing> and you start to enable trust and reputation.
rushkoff
Nov 26, 2012, 8:01:04 AM11/26/12
to The Next Net
Sorry to be gone for a while. The Digest functionality of all my
Google groups seems to have gone away. So I have to change to
individual messages to see anything coming in.
On Nov 2, 9:25 am, Fen Labalme <f...@openprivacy.org> wrote:
Google groups seems to have gone away. So I have to change to
individual messages to see anything coming in.
On Nov 2, 9:25 am, Fen Labalme <f...@openprivacy.org> wrote:
David Bowman
Nov 26, 2012, 3:29:56 PM11/26/12
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Not a problem. I was concerned about my own Digest functionality also!
Thank you for informing me.
Regards
David
Mark Roest
Dec 12, 2013, 3:33:29 PM12/12/13
to building-a-distributed...@googlegroups.com
Hello Poor Richard,
It's been a while since I've written to you. Regarding developing ontologies with defined cross-links, have you see, Compendium? It comes out of the Free University of the UK.
Have you made headway with ontologies, or other approaches to a socioeconomics research system? You might check the archive on KPFA.org for the 8 a.m. show this morning -- an author describing his new economic atlas of California -- done from a left perspective.
I forwarded your post to Jack Park, who has been researching and designing large-scale discussion and decision systems that start where Compendium leaves off. He may contact you. Sorry it's a bit clumsy, but he's not in the Google Group.
Regards,
Mark Roest
It's been a while since I've written to you. Regarding developing ontologies with defined cross-links, have you see, Compendium? It comes out of the Free University of the UK.
Have you made headway with ontologies, or other approaches to a socioeconomics research system? You might check the archive on KPFA.org for the 8 a.m. show this morning -- an author describing his new economic atlas of California -- done from a left perspective.
I forwarded your post to Jack Park, who has been researching and designing large-scale discussion and decision systems that start where Compendium leaves off. He may contact you. Sorry it's a bit clumsy, but he's not in the Google Group.
Regards,
Mark Roest
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages