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

Thu Feb 7 13:01:55 CET 2013

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, flawer <flawer at shareful.be> wrote:

>
> > 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 tend to dislike these models.. people forced me to comment in cs and
> i am browsing too much of a overhappied load, but i admit that it works
> for the majority.  i prefer the 'no news are good news', archive bad
> reputation only, and then having a little of bad reputation could be a
> wished reputation  (it is better some visible reputation than no visible
> reputation, maybe :).
>

It was only to make a parallel... with concepts / approaches to reputation
online.

the way I imagine it, there would be no need to comment, or add stars, or
whatever...

Transactions would happen, and based on the privacy levels people choose,
they are publicly available or not...

hence people can understand interdependencies and choose to interact based
on past, present, and future actions or suggestions...

The past, present and future are defined in this introduction :

http://www.netention.org/intro/

(Watch in full-screen)<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByfmjEDwh_feV1hsX1o1OVFXTlE/preview>

>
> >   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...
>
> but not that much free to relate to other ontologies (concept creator
> moderate its semantics, altough it could be crowdsourcedly inputed or
> reviewed too).. or it's pure folksonomy.
>

as I see it, combination of the two... ontologies and folksonomies...
+ people can use the tool to define their own meaning / ontologies

when combined with tags, I imagine that bridges can be made, through
emergence and patterns evolving out of it, between a potential diversity of
ontologies used ?

>
> > one would need to convene to use the same ontologies...
> > though perhaps som
> >
> > meaning giving ?
>
> through the defining, and the adding of (reviewable, crwodsourced)
> hints for developing for the concept (i.e. coward) and +1s for those..
> is how i initially thought this karmic wealth (coward, etc points) to be
> generated. It can be used for relating material resources transactions
>
> >> Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more
> >> complex, and I do no
>
> uhm... let's start by trying to find universalizable meaningful sets of
> things:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic
> human values maybe....
>
> or play with just verbs or just nouns for defining other things..
>

or we can start simply with units such as apples and pears ( such as within
a collaborative consumption and/or shareable approach )

and also express the conditions related to such transactions,

and then add / experiment with any other algorithms later ?

>
> or go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia (although it has
> some dialects by longitude and latitude :)
>

:)

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130207/e6612c93/attachment.htm 