[P2P-F] emergent holoptism as OCL Re: open capital License?

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, flawer <flawer at shareful.be> wrote:

> >  I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled
> > into contextualized descriptions,
>
> i guess you refer to data explicit ontologies from resources types ()
> and from more abstract or meta things (i.e. human values, courage,
> lazyness, etc. i.e. blue, red, etc)
>

yes :)
describing objects with ontologies, or eventually with tags ( and enable a
combination of a folksonomy and ontologies to describe objects and
relations between them )


>
> implicit data (i.e. logs in at same time on fridays, etc) would be even
> more interesting to network with.....
>
> for then stablishing preferences of investments or for simplier
> exchanging material things as a excuse for getting in a better human
> relation with certain peers (the machine recommends me to
> invest/exchange with x related maybe unknown peers)
>

yes, manual queries using the system, or algorithms for the system to
automatically make suggestions


>
> if instead of preferences we say: requirements (to deal *just* with
> "couragous blue" mates), we have a kind of currency..


yes


> (flow network is
> perhaps more accurate :) and brings the overlap issue:
>
>
> > Somehow, I see a variety of [clauses] , amongst other ontologies
> > many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could
> > overlap ?
>
> sure. in (i.e. human values), you shouldn't flow/convert couragous
> points into coward points, or you shouldn't use a shareful coward thing
> if you don't have coward points... or you should be able to clear your
> coward points with courageous points? haha.


:)

yes...

note :
or perhaps even before any interpretation into "coward points" ( whatever
the objective algorithm / interpretation of such points would be ) ,
the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation ,
or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :)

I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing



> i guess this depends on the
> owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be
> transferable with.
>

yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use...
one would need to convene to use the same ontologies...
though perhaps some kind of combination with a folksonomical approach could
bridge some of the stiffness of ontological meaning giving ?

Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex,
and I do not know much about it...


>
> i imagine i am trying subscribing to "courage" and "courage2" flows in
> network x, which are incompatible between them.. owned by different
> authors).
>
> i have overseen some more specifications in this direction, but i am...
> aa..
>
>
:)


> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20130206/ce446afe/attachment.htm