Learn living ontology

From eg

Jump to: navigation, search

This inadequate guide is the easiest way to learn living ontology for now. More interactive and illustrative resources will be available by 2008 latest: see eg:do. Probably using OLAT initially, though the eventual intended user interface is mobile augmented reality. An interim step may be to re-implement a Living Platform interface for mediawiki monoculture.

See RDF and SEO if you're trying to figure out how this solves the same problem as other ontology options. Which it does, it just also does a lot more.

See Living Ontology Web if you're just trying to figure out which explicitly political public wikis are doing this right and should be copied.

See ECG naming conventions if all you're trying to do is name some pages.

Contents

[edit] Why use it?

Living ontology simplifies conversations about the post-colonial net-enabled world. When used to describe that world, it assumes far less trust in individual senses or control than other terms. This is especially useful when situations are discovered to be out of control (chaotic or just complex) and not responding to management sequences. In other words, where a leader is required.

[edit] Constrains necessary but unpopular activity

LO enables trolling injustice by providing new and more effective ways to talk about the various problems that happen when one tries to assert human rights or change leaders. See distrust/dethrone/debunk for more details on this. LO also provides terse constrained vocabulary for talking about distrust, in part to enable due processing: the rigorous execution of organization protocols and legal protocols and the rigorous enforcement of doctrines.

LO also enables new civilization protocols that challenge traditional notions of property and control. To use/rent/return an item/service/facility is the simplest example. One commits to use an item, for instance, by picking it up. One commands it by triggering its functions to receive services, and one controls its impact on your life by returning it and letting some other person use it. It may even be possible to apply this pattern when the owner insists on a rent/use/return pattern instead, if the entity, e.g. a disaster relief agency, that commands the use is sufficiently powerful or respected.

However, without LO, it would be necessary to deal with such usage not authorized in advance as a claim/tort/crime, a far higher overhead and wasteful process.

LO may also assist negotiations between factions, e.g. in a protest or riot, and accordingly save lives, if both sides will agree to participate in multi-ontology sense-making, enabled be adopting all ECG control terms

[edit] collective cognition

Collective cognition (which precedes commitment) bootstraps from discernments:

In other words, people who confuse the actual future with projections from the past, confuse authority or deference for logic or fact, cannot assess reliably the safety and closure constraints of a group nor the potential for disruption, and who do not recognize "musts" at roughly the same time and see the potential for the emergence of a we from following through on will, should be filtered out and rendered powerless to stop cooperation. Everyone else should improve the cooperation. See consensus for operational definitions directly relevant to bootstrapping, and openpolitics.ca: GROOP for empirical research testing the above.

[edit] cooperative versus colonial affordance

Once cooperation is actually initiated, commitments are followed through with command and control, as usual, but with language, feedback loops and twelve levers as the only regulatory mechanism. The command grammar itself, as with a computer user interface, creates compliance reflexively.

During this bootstrapping, new concepts of affordance emerge, which may well be perceived as an entirely different reality. Some technologies facilitate these shifts, as do some language and metaphor choices. Some difficult psychological transitions may be required to modify colonial ideas of access, identity, rules/fiefs and knowledge. Two particularly important such transitions are:

  • separating first-person we/will/must from second or third person should/must/does, recognizing that such statements about others direct, predict and verify far more than do equivalent first person statements, and that they commit less - the colonial assumption is exactly opposite, a statement by a colonial official that someone 'must' is actually a threat.
  • explicit goal/process/audits that verify to the satisfaction of one's peers that values are being achieved, rather than a command hierarchy's simple approval - again the colonial assumption is of remote commanders.

[edit] why not use some other ontology?

Most ontology is very fragile, brittle, rigid and reacts extremely poorly to any confused or uncertain inputs. By focusing on the learning process itself, the scientific method, and the actions taken to change or probe one's environment (resulting in versions of it), LO avoids making some assumptions that may make other ontologies dangerous in chaotic/complex/complicated situations. For instance, mobile augmented reality implies the user will move and be subject to dangers far less predictable than those they face sitting down anywhere sane. Lazy assumptions about affordance/hazard/threat and other proximity/volatility/environment factors (such as ambient temperature or air quality) can actually increase risk of bodily harm for users of non-LO applications.

[edit] Can you be more technical?

The living ontology is an active risk-reducing mapping ontology optimized for multi-ontology sense-making. That is, it does not assume that everything will be described in its own native terms, but is optimized instead to make it easy to map other ontology to it.

Because infrastructure imposes ontology, LO remains independent of any given infrastructure and of any phase of its development, i.e. just as useful in planning and building it, as repairing it, and in augmenting it during a crisis when it's overburdened or partly incapacitated. The infra trades categorize the skills required to fix the flow of infrastructure.

LO applies resilience economics and like that field avoids making any lazy:

  • tense assumptions (past, present, future)
  • implicit property or perspective assumptions (we, they, our except as constructed)
  • infrastructure assumptions ("computer", "building") unless verified ("laptop")
  • commitment assumptions (esp. command and control feasibility assumptions)
  • any bias that chaotic or complex situations can be treated as if merely complicated (see chaotic/complex/complicated)
  • any use of spatial metaphor where no actual human-maneuvered space is implied, reserving spatial metaphors to describing actual spaces and paths that humans use
  • any use of social metaphor where no shared risk of bodily harm is implied, reserving social metaphors to describing shared social lives (a non-epistemic community)
  • tag/category/namespace overloads that are anything other than intentional; by default, a namespace must be a category, which must be a tag

In other words, if LO uses a word like "we" you can be absolutely certain that there is a traceable answer to the question "who's we"? If it uses the word "become" you can be certain that the process described begins in the present and terminates in the future. If it uses the word "move" this means an actual body moving, not a rename operations. See mediawiki gronks for examples of abuses of spatial metaphor that are specifically addressed and fixed in LO.


image:ccc.jpg

[edit] routine, simple, complicated

A routine consists of commit/command/control sequences nested however the commitments, commands and controls are nested. See model/view/control for the exact operational distinctions that apply to a control model. Everyone involved in a routine is assumed to have the same goal and mindset and be involved in the same faction, or effectively agreed to take a well-defined common action to further a common cause.

A simple decision involves some custom mapping of ccc but no new types of factors. A complicated situation involves reviewing every ccc for its implications in combination. A complex or chaotic situation involve new ccc bindings and accordingly cannot be made as predictable as merely complicated.

However, the basic structure of commit/command/control remains very similar.

[edit] commit

To commit requires:

[edit] Self-organizing commitment

If the commitments become subject to dispute, it may be necessary to govern:

[edit] command

Commands are implied by commitments:

[edit] Self-organizing command

Command relationships tend to fail if they are not carefully documented in advance:

[edit] control

Commitments and commands require constant monitoring, followup and management:

[edit] Self-organizing control

Appropriate levels of controls are a complex and political topic. A triple bottom line maximization model implies balancing five ins to move capital assets where required. This can be owner-driven if the user can rent/use/return an item/service/facility, but some types of each don't lend themselves to permission well.

[edit] chaotic and complex situations (out of control)

Some living ontology patterns apply more to study/learn/teach (education and science). More difficult distinctions tend to be required to quickly reduce the chaotic or complex to the merely complicated for a solution or at least an attempt or try at one.

In resilience/crisis/relief situations, rather than simple copies of model actions, shared wisdom is required: react/reflect/reflex distinctions apply - see reactive process, reflective process, reflexive, ultra-reflexive, govern reflectively and govern reflexively, and all examples of the ultra-reflexive). The most accessible example is motion/resolved/whereas in wiki meetings. See agenda protocol for a fuller treatment.

[edit] logistical (scarcity/asset-centric)

A verb applies only to a few capital assets - never to all such assets.

Some instructional living ontology patterns deal with spreading page/sentence/assertions. What's commonly called SEO is characterized operationally as categorize/spread/uprank. The use of tagging by bloggers is tag/spread/uprank, as they rely on third party web services such as Digg (and may eventually rely on an open tag system). More sophisticated semantic tag systems like RDF and semantic mediawiki express subject/predicate/object relations.

[edit] Living Ontology Web

The Living Ontology Web improves the integrativity of RDF-expressed concepts, and implicit semantic tags, by helping somewhat semantic wikis coordinate use of prepositions and various simple logistical assertions that can be processed by inference. See Centiare ASK for an example of a similar capability that operates only on the Centiare semantic mediawiki.

[edit] tactical (goal/plan-centric)

Leaders versus managers (see lead/manage/mediate for complete pattern)

Plans or trying:

[edit] enacTOR

The enacTOR application provides simple support for political action via LOW and similar systems. The trollbar extends this for ECG nominees.

[edit] strategic (priority/complexity-centric)

Scientific method or tests (see defer/refer/infer for introduction)

[edit] Laputa

Laputa is an attempt to radically accelerate and spread scientific method in the form of the ultra methods based on the above patterns. The maximum number of factionally-defined terms and patterns must be explored in Laputa. Integrativity is the goal rather than any factionally defined integrity. That is, Laputa is a non-optimal compromise from the POV of every known faction.

[edit] diplomatic (faction-centric)

Distrust and due processing (see distrust/dethrone/debunk for pattern)

[edit] Huohuohynym

...is an attempt to radically accelerate and spread diplomatic method in the form of the ultra methods based on the above patterns. That is, Huohuohynym decreases the friction of epistemic filters by aligning them with each other opportunistically, and calling common patterns to attention faster than otherwise.

[edit] objections and ambitions

[edit] This is complicated. Can't I use something else?

Sure. People have been using terminology that assume that the chaotic, complex or complicated is actually simple for at least five to seven thousand years. Those civilizations all failed. You're welcome to copy them. But others may find that they don't like your interpretation. Religion, for instance, has generally failed the test of integrativity (though some like Buddhism are far superior at reconciling their concepts with science, psychology, ethics and so on).

Managers usually argue for command and control systems that tend to assume that the entire universe operates like a machine: mechanistic paradigm. Leaders are more prone to acknowledge that a situation is out of control but impose personality-driven systems that are not reliable, accountable, verifiable, resilient, responsible, regretful, remorseful or restorative enough to cope with decisions that have many victim. In other words, you can't deal with a grave risk of nuclear war by threatening to kill the leadership if they start one. Not only will no one be left to kill them, but the scale of the harm vastly outweighs any possible scale of regret, remorse or restoration.

LO refuses to reduce the diplomatic, strategic and tactical complexity of the real living (and social and political) world to merely logistical distinctions. Some of its living ontology patterns are vague. Get used to it. The world is vague.

[edit] What are you going to do with it?

Before anyone does anything, the ECG operational distinction quiz will be improved and refined and tested with people who don't even understand the above.

Initial thinking by ECG is that living ontology serves three primary, three secondary and two tertiary purposes. Primary:

Secondary:

Tertiary:

To commit/command/control requires keeping feedback in this same web, with different domains serving each level of reflexivity. This is the easiest of the living ontology patterns to understand, so it's used to organize the others above.

[edit] um, ok, but what are you going to do with it that someone wants to buy?

Eveything that command and control can't do, or refuses to do, or does badly. Here are some sample goals:

[edit] deploy and maintain OLPC networks

The OLPC is a good example of using mesh networks and peer review. The six styles of capital is an ideal model to guide provisioning and sysopping of the OLPC monoculture to best grow the human capital of the OLPC user base.

[edit] build resilient networks

The infra trade ticket key should be a far more reliable way of determining who to allow near your signal infrastructure and what you should allow them to do. Some building and network security mechanisms are worthless since they are easily bypassed by individuals who perform backups, clean the building, and so on. Others are easily bypassed by social engineering. Worst, vast amounts of cash are wasted on systems that end up with single point of failure problems despite being overly robust. See resilience economics for more on these problems.

[edit] respond in crises

A crisis is any situation that overwhelms local capacity to respond. Resilient networks including OLPCs and worn devices can be most easily coordinated by a model which makes few assumptions about routines or simplicity and permits arbitrary factions to be organized around any assumption at all. A community emergency response team for instance can be rapidly formed with living ontology patterns, with simple default in/up/down/out assumptions.

[edit] help you buy healthy

A healthy signal infastructure that tells you what is worth buying according to your own value system (which presumably includes at least your own health) can only evolve from a system that has already itself evolved via sustainable development means such as radical reduction in e-waste and energy use. See Consumerium for an example application including patent poison disclosure.

[edit] streamline legal transactions

There's also a need for an efficient legal infrastructure. The many trust problems of biometric ID suggest it should be avoided in favour of biometric credentials and challenge-response systems. For sensitive and social applications, a biometric quorum credential can enable live meetings among people who haven't previously met and wish to exclude imposters, and a biometric credential quorum key can deal even with very sensitive situations like a last will and testament. See Efficient Law for more on these, and distrust and due processing for general models applicable to commercial law.

[edit] expose and reduce injustice

Finally, trolling injustice will never be easy. Many inter-factional deals, such as those between major US service providers and tyrannical regimes, render dissent dangerous. However the factionally defined terms in which people describe justice and injustice hobble progress even on basic human rights. Mechanisms like the AI letter can be augmented and amplified and even made into a repute mechanism perceptible directly even to low level officials in tyrannical countries. Building such systems on LO allows responsible persons to define criteria for outable factions that prevent abuse of secure anonymity devices like DemocraKey to advance unnecessarily violent actions or crimes, and also prevent abuse of these outing mechanisms to reveal opponents or victims. See Efficient Politics for the first steps to this mechanism.

[edit] dunno, what do you want to do?

An ontology useful for the four above goals should be useful to do anything worthwhile. Since the main claim for LO is integrativity, suggest something, and it'll be integrated into this list.

If you can prove that something else is doing one of those jobs better, great, add links. We know about stuff like LegalXML and ConsuML already.

[edit] I get it, what next?

Consider becoming an ECG nominee to qualify to get access to training material. (this isn't it).

Retrieved from "http://let.sysops.be/wiki/Learn_living_ontology"
Personal tools