Re: Current Prototyping ? BrowsEarth , Netention , and other related concepts - Synergies ?

[Poor Richard]

Dante, please see my interlinear comments below:

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
<skip>

As described in the Netention introduction , I wish it to support present and future suggested contextualization , enabling the matching of needs and offers based on such contextualization.  I also imagine that transactions can be kept on the record to enable the build up of a shared history, further providing context for present and future choices, and creating reputation as a form of currency.

As for more specific applications, I imagine the whole emerging "sharing economy" as finding a usage in such tools.

But I can also imagine it to be used to describe complex interwoven systems, including in the promotion of political and financial transparency, enabling citizens to understand interdependencies, and overcome bias.

This can also be used with any product : as to enable an open platform for the sharing of metadata in regards to any product.

Dante, I agree with this, especially the notion of maintaining a metadata "audit trail" of nearly all kinds of transactions and exchanges for virtually all p2p applications.  The technical challenge is how to preserve the "truth" of the audit trail and minimize its resource demands in a p2p cloud environment.

<skip>

I see this as being part of a "communal shareholding" / commons relational dynamic ( which I relate to a "libre" approach ).

I made the following comments on the "communal shareholding" article on the talk page:  1) IMO non-reciprocal relations are tolerable under various consensual conditions but not ideal under any condition. Basically, reciprocity = justice or fairness, and thus maximizing reciprocity is an implicit goal in any relation. 2) re: Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, Market Pricing. IMO the relational model called "Communal Sharing" always contains elements of the other three relational models but in unspecified, informal, or de facto forms. Informality can be conducive to simplicity in casual relations, but when the informal relations are masked by a false or inaccurate communal formalism, the true nature of relations is obscured. The benefits of such obscured implicit relations often accrue to the stronger members of the collective. http://p2pfoundation.net/Talk:Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske

PR