Hello Johann, (01)
As administrator of the the [ontolog-forum] list, i would like to draw
your attention to the following system bounce message. (02)
In particular, the message cites ...
//
<johann.mellin@xxxxxxxxxxx>: host mx.spamexperts.com[188.138.56.116] said: 550
The content of this message looked like spam. (in reply to end of DATA
command)
// (03)
The content of the post in question is legitimate (and not spam.) I
would, therefore, suggest that you handle this with your mail
administrator, and have him/her whitelist on your <mx.spamexperts.com>
spam firewall, for the Ontolog list distribution in the future, if you
want to avoid being shut out from getting our community postings. (04)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (05)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <mailman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM
Subject: Bounce action notification
To: ontolog-forum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
This is a Mailman mailing list bounce action notice: (07)
List: ontolog-forum
Member: johann.mellin@xxxxxxxxxxx
Action: Subscription disabled.
Reason: Excessive or fatal bounces. (08)
The triggering bounce notice is attached below. (09)
Questions? Contact the Mailman site administrator at
mailman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: MAILER-DAEMON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mail Delivery System)
To: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
This is the Postfix program at host mccarthy.cim3.com. (011)
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. (012)
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster> (013)
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message. (014)
The Postfix program (015)
<johann.mellin@xxxxxxxxxxx>: host mx.spamexperts.com[188.138.56.116] said: 550
The content of this message looked like spam. (in reply to end of DATA
command) (016)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; johann.mellin@xxxxxxxxxxx
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host mx.spamexperts.com[188.138.56.116] said: 550
The content of this message looked like spam. (in reply to
end of DATA command) (017)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ontolog-forum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:38:56 -0700
Subject: ontolog-forum Digest, Vol 104, Issue 27
Send ontolog-forum mailing list submissions to
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (018)
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ontolog-forum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (019)
You can reach the person managing the list at
ontolog-forum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (020)
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ontolog-forum digest..." (021)
Today's Topics: (022)
1. Re: Making the Ontology Summit content Accessible (Ali Hashemi)
2. Re: Self Interest Ontology going offline (Rich Cooper)
3. Re: Self Interest Ontology going offline (Rich Cooper) (023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (024)
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:43:46 -0400
From: Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Making the Ontology Summit content
Accessible
To: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "\[ontolog-forum\]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael F
Uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
<CADr70E3-P6jdo+wUZu=5+sBp=6hmCTsXB9BVjomo3q80ihn1AQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" (025)
Hi Peter, (026)
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (027)
> [ppy] (ref.
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2011-07/msg00184.html#nid05
> ) I assume you meant "purple semantic media wiki (PSMW)," as we are
> actually working on moving out of "purple wiki." (You probably meant
> that already, I just wanted to make sure.) (028)
Yes, I meant PSMW. (029)
> > [AH] Do you think a wiki is the best fit for a final website ...
>
> [ppy] <snip> (ii) more modern
> wiki platforms ("psmw" can be considered among them) are so versatile
> that one can support a lot of fancy graphics and GUI's (to the extent
> that most people may not even realize that some websites are built on
> wiki platforms) ... as such, the decision should not be made on
> whether or not the platform is labeled as a "wiki," but rather, on
> what functionalities and features are needed in your case, and what
> platform would most easily provide for them.
> (030)
Absolutely agree. My main objection to a wiki was exactly the lack of that
versatility that you mention is now available. Going to a site that has the
look and feel of a wiki is good for some things, but wholly inappropriate
for many others. Bart and I in our initial pass, identified 4 broad classes
of users. (031)
Again, keeping in mind (and assuming) that the function of the website is to
support the content and end result of each summit, the functionality that
arose for each class of user were: (032)
1. General browser - "What was the summit about?"
2. Evangelists - Someone wanting to make the case - "How can I make the
case to my specific audience?"
3. Decision Makers - Someone looking for ontology uses - "Which efforts
match my current situation?"
4. Contributors - "I have an experience that fits this summit" (033)
I think the Contributor class corresponds to the classic wiki use-case, the
other 3 classes fall more into the consumer use-case. (034)
>
>
> [ppy] this is great! ... except for the word "expressive," I bet PSMW
> would be a good candidate to support the work. As for "expressive"
> (especially "expressive ontology"), PSMW may possibly be challenged;
> we need to talk things through together, and probably work something
> out together. I am sure to get to where you want (regardless of the
> platform you end up choosing), some code have yet to be developed, and
> that's where some of the gaps may be bridged.
> (035)
Good point, but there's a reason for choosing an expressive ontology. We do
not foresee the more expressive version as one that would necessarily be
computed upon. We are actually hoping to use this project as a way to
demonstrate two types of ontology use - that of ontology for design, and
ontology for real-time search / usability. To that end, we're thinking of
deploying two distinct ontology artifacts. One proposal we're considering
for how to move forward and the implementation architecture. (036)
1. Develop an expressive, though under-specified ontology. This captures
in a technology independent way, what we're trying to solve / represent.
(candidate language - Common Logic)
2. Tag our content using the vocabulary we've developed (candidate
language, RDFa or some other microformat)
3. Determine the types of inferences and views we want to support.
4. Create and store queries that correspond to these inferences using our
RDFa tagging. (candidate query languages, SPARQL or if we want to go the old
school route, perl scripts?)
5. Develop a set of CSS's that provide the visual context and style
information for how our content is displayed. (037)
So there are a number of interesting uses of ontology that come out of this.
The ideas that have driven the above approach include: (038)
- It is easier to conduct semantic mappings on expressive ontologies
- Demonstrate how ontology driven design can work with a practical (if
simple) example.
- Demonstrate how an expressive, referent ontology can provide as a sort
of "contract store", whereby various web services can align or rather honour
the semantics of a referent ontology in their functionality -- this is
entirely in alignment with Service Oriented Architectures which are coming
to dominate web application deployments.
- I personally think that Ontology Driven Software / Web Development
is an area that is all too often overlooked (notwithstanding the
excellent
conference on that very topic).
- The link between SOA and ontology is also not well highlighted,
which this project could help clarify
- Demonstrate an effective use of query-rewriting to match the
technology choice of *du jour.*
- Demonstrate how the Linked Open Data world can be enriched and enhanced
by linking the deployed microformats or triples to an actual, expressive
ontology. (039)
To this end, we actually took a close look at the various available
extensions to SemanticMediaWiki, and our main issue was the lack of
versatility when it comes to rendering the pages. (040)
>
> > [AH] Would we be able to store say a triple-store on ontolog?
>
> [ppy] I would recommend using OOR (ref.
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository )
> (041)
If the PSWM or Ontolog is already deploying such a thing, then we don't need
a distinct space. (042)
The idea however, is to annotate the content of the Summit - wherever it is
stored - with a microformat vocabulary derived from the more expressive
referent ontology. Queries will be rewritten according to common inferences
based on the referent ontology, and deployed in the website. The main
functionality we desire, is to render the results according to our own CSS's
and not be tied to the CSS's that come with a particular SMW implementation.
If this freedom is available, and if PSMW is being deployed anyway, then it
does not make sense to have a distinct annotated store. (043)
Of course, aside from Bart and yourself (and some preliminary discussions at
the Summit debriefing meeting a few months back), precious little feedback
has trickled in. So all this could be subject to change if anyone else has a
better idea or vision for the architecture or execution. (044)
Best,
Ali (045)
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dear Peter and Bart,
> > Sorry for the delayed response.I would definitely be interested in the
> work
> > on the purple wiki's, though I don't have much time to commit to that.
> > In the meantime, Bart G. and I have started work on this idea. Do you
> think
> > a wiki is the best fit for a final website associated with each year's
> > summit? Are people on board with adding an additional, explicit
> deliverable
> > from each summit (i.e. a website that summarizes and provides an easy,
> more
> > general audience view into the work)?
> > For this current project, we were interested in using an expressive
> ontology
> > to capture a technology agnostic representation of the domain, and then
> do a
> > sort of "ontology-driven website design", deploying suitable, more
> optimized
> > semantic technologies for the actual website functionality.
> > Would we be able to store say a triple-store on ontolog? We're a bit
> unclear
> > how the web infrastructure would work on this.
> > Best,
> > Ali
>
>
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sounds great, Ali!
> >>
> >> > [AH] (micro-tears on ankle ligaments means no camping+cottaging for a
> >> > few weeks! :D ).
> >>
> >> [ppy] get well soon, Ali!
> >>
> >>
> >> In addition to your thoughts, I want to bring up the following for you
> >> and everyone's consideration ...
> >>
> >> 1. There is an effort (behind the scene) that is working on
> >> "migrating and enhancing" the OntologWiki content -- transforming that
> >> from its current "purple wiki" platform to a "purple semantic
> >> mediawiki (PSMW)" platform.
> >>
> >> 2. presumably one could be a bit more fancy with the "look and feel"
> >> on that new platform as well. Do check out:
> >>
> >>
>
>http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology_Design_Patterns_._org_%28ODP%29
> >> and
> >>
>
>http://smwforum.ontoprise.com/smwforum/index.php/HaloExtension_Product_Information
> >> for possibilities (on how the site may be implemented) ... both of
> >> these sites are build on the Semantic MediaWiki platform.
> >>
> >> 3. you (and others who are interested to support this initiative you
> >> are brining up) might consider possible synergies, through
> >> collaborating with those who are working on the PSMW "migration and
> >> enhancement" now (these people are meeting Wednesday evenings every
> >> week - I can put you in touch with them.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> >> --
>
>
> >> ---------- original message ----------
> >> From: Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:22 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Making the Ontology Summit content Accessible
> >> To: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]"
> >> <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael F Uschold
> >> <uschold@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Peter and all,
> >>
> >> After a long delay, I am finally capable of committing some time and
> >> energy on this effort (micro-tears on ankle ligaments means no
> >> camping+cottaging for a few weeks! :D ).
> >>
> >>
> >> To briefly recap what's written below.
> >>
> >> Ontology Summit 2011 came and went, and was by many measures a
> >> success. Many wonderful conversations were stimulated and captured on
> >> ontolog wiki and the Communique with its supporting documentation
> >> provides a valuable resource to those who wish to make the case for
> >> ontology. However, it was noticed by many that the content is not as
> >> accessible to a broad audience as we'd like. Moreover, I think it was
> >> also noticed that we could derive additional value from the summit by
> >> creating a distinct, dedicated website for the work that was developed
> >> in the summit.
> >>
> >> As Michael Uschold and others noted, the way that content is presented
> >> on the ontolog wiki is well geared for collaboration, editing and
> >> creating, but not great for a broader audience. To address this issue,
> >> I think a proposal is to have the creation of a Summit Website to be
> >> an explicit goal of each summit from here on in.
> >>
> >> To put our efforts where our mouths are, I think we can begin by
> >> creating a site for the Making the Case. Specifically, I think we can
> >> achieve three objectives in so doing:
> >>
> >> 1. Present our work in engaging, custom-way way to a broad audience
> >>
> >> 2. Actually use ontology to do so
> >>
> >> 2.1 Demonstrate the use of an expressive, technology agnostic,
> >> though lightweight ontology in the conceptualization of our problem
> >> domain
> >>
> >> 2.2 Demonstrate the mapping of the expressive ontology to a
> >> specific technology implementation that fits the needs of the problem
> >> domain
> >>
> >> Where (2.1) and (2.2) provide two additional case examples of ontology
> >> in action.
> >>
> >>
> >> To wit, in making the case, we considered:
> >>
> >> o Target audiences
> >> o Values and benefits
> >> o Case studies
> >> o Metrics
> >>
> >> these each comprised separate tracks, yet any person who wants to use
> >> the output of the summit will likely be looking for a specific
> >> audience, where that audience values a subset of the metrics and a
> >> subset of the benefits, where in addition, only a subset of the case
> >> studies actually demonstrate these benefits. So by modeling how the
> >> output of the summit fits into the work ecology of our potential
> >> audience, we can structure our content in such a way to generate
> >> dynamic, custom views to the website users. Moreover, if this summit
> >> continues to collect more case studies, we would be able to
> >> organically grow the site as we add content with minimal costs.
> >> All-in-all, a good demonstration of what we're preaching about
> >> ontology, applied to itself - no?
> >>
> >> I think (2.1) and (2.2) above demonstrate two uses of ontologies. The
> >> first (2.1) captures ontology in a technology agnostic way in an
> >> expressive language. I would propose using Common Logic to capture the
> >> relationship among the various tracks and our users. The second
> >> ontology use (2.2) corresponds to using the tools that are available
> >> now -- this involves mapping elements of minimally-defined CL theory
> >> to RDF/XML(?) statements that annotate our content + (stored) SPARQL
> >> queries that are used to generate the views according to user input.
> >> The idea is that the user won't be explicitly writing SPARQL queries,
> >> but rather, a nice, clean interface that elicits their specific needs
> >> as it pertains to making the case, would execute the queries and
> >> generate a dynamic, custom-tailored page.
> >>
> >>
> >> What do people think? Any feedback?
> >>
> >> And more importantly, are there people who would be willing to donate
> >> some time to realize this effort? I know Michael U. had wanted to
> >> refine our metrics and specifically the benefits that each use case
> >> purported to demonstrate. What we need for this effort are:
> >>
> >> o Refined metrics for the metric tracks
> >> o Standardized benefits in terms of the metrics for each of the use
> cases
> >> o Linking the target audiences to types of benefits
> >> o Minimally specified CL modules that represent the relations between
> >> the various tracks
> >> o A mapping of fragments of the CL modules to RDF annotations and
> >> SPARQL queries
> >> o An actual website that implements SPARQL and RDF/XML
> >>
> >> Any volunteers for any of these tasks? Also, please note that CL, RDF
> >> and SPARQL are just initial proposals to get the ball rolling, if
> >> others feel that something else is more appropriate, please speak up.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> Ali
>
>
> >> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Great, Ali! ... Forwarding this thread to the Ontolog community now
> ...
> >> >
> >> > ALL: Let's continue the conversation here (on the [ontolog-forum]
> list).
> >> >
> >> > Thanks & regards. =ppy
> >> > --
>
>
> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> > From: Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Date: Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:26 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Making the Summit Accessible
> >> > To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dear all,
> >> > Yes, it seems like a good idea to shift the conversation over to the
> >> > regular forum.
> >> > Unfortunately, I will be without electronic communication until June
> >> > 6, so I won't be able to contribute until then.
> >> > I will catch up then.
> >> > Best,
> >> > Ali
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > (?`'?.?(`'?.?(?)?.?'?)?.?'??) .,.,
>
>
> >> > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Dear Ali and All,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thank you, Ali ... this is great! ... I concur and encourage
> everyone
> >> > > interested to actively engage in this conversation.
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. I agree with you, and am in favor of having *one website* as the
> >> > > home to all summit "presentations" year-after-year. (I believe that
> >> > > academic conferences have their annual conferences distributed in
> >> > > different site-locations are a result of how "ownerships" get passed
> >> > > from institution to institution, and not a function of optimal
> >> > > design.)
> >> > >
> >> > > 2. note that the Ontolog-CWE (collaborative work environment)
> >> > > actually have four key components in the infrastructure (a
> >> > > portal/website space, a wiki, an archived mailing list and a webdav
> >> > > server ... representing four somewhat orthogonal workspaces - a
> >> > > presentation space, a collaborative authoring and synchronization
> >> > > workspace, a conversation space, and a shared-file repository.) With
> >> > > your effort here, looks like we can finally take advantage of the
> >> > > portal/website infrastructure that has been sitting around all these
> >> > > years.
> >> > >
> >> > > 3. since OntologySummit2011 is officially over, and this exercise
> >> > > that you are leading is actually using OntologySummit2011 as a case
> to
> >> > > develop something that extends beyond this year's Summit and is
> >> > > important to the entire ontology community, you might consider
> moving
> >> > > the conversation to the [ontolog-forum] list, where the reach is
> wider
> >> > > (roughly twice the number of subscribers, and more international
> >> > > participation.)
> >> > >
> >> > > 4. to augment this threaded discussion, please consider picking one
> >> > > (or even several) time slots to run real-time focused discussion
> >> > > and/or workshop(s) on this effort, making use of, say, the regular
> >> > > Ontolog Thursday event time slot and virtual panel discussion
> session
> >> > > format, as you feel appropriate. Reserve any date that is marked
> >> > > "open" on our Ontolog master event calendar - see:
> >> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MeetingsCalls (email me if
> I
> >> > > can be of help to facilitate the organization of such event(s).)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks & regards. =ppy
> >> > > --
>
>
> >> > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > > beyond the conclusion of the face-to-face meetings.
> >> > > > As a follow up to yesterday's conference call
> >> > > > (
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_05_19),
> >> > > > I think
> >> > > > we agreed on the need for developing something more than a
> >> > > > Communique. We
> >> > > > need to present the culmination of the summit (Communique + Tracks
> +
> >> > > > Wiki
> >> > > > content) in a more effective manner.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Specifically, if we're considering putting the creation of a
> website
> >> > > > as an
> >> > > > additional explicit goal of the outcome of future summits, then I
> >> > > > think we
> >> > > > have one of two choices:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > One central site that contains each year
> >> > > > One site for each year (i.e. how academic conferences usually
> >> > > > collect
> >> > > > material)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think the first one makes more sense, as it provides a more
> >> > > > unified view
> >> > > > of the progress of ontology and the summits. My personal
> experience
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > conference websites (say for IJCAI) is that each year differs
> highly
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > quality, they are not presented in a consistent way, and are
> >> > > > generally a
> >> > > > frustrating way to keep track of conferences over a long period of
> >> > > > time.
> >> > > > Beyond the above consideration, I would suggest that the purpose
> of
> >> > > > each
> >> > > > site should be to support the theme of the summit and mediate the
> >> > > > relation
> >> > > > to resources developed over the course of the summit in a more
> >> > > > accessible
> >> > > > manner.
> >> > > > I'll use the 2011 Making the Case Summit to illustrate what I mean
> >> > > > by the
> >> > > > above statement.
> >> > > > In this case, we identified a number of tracks tackling different
> >> > > > aspects of
> >> > > > one problem -- how to construct a compelling, persuasive argument
> re
> >> > > > ontologies. In the course of this process, we collected, developed
> >> > > > and are
> >> > > > ultimately providing the material for ontology evangelists to make
> >> > > > actual
> >> > > > cases. Not only that, but the resources we provide include
> >> > > > identifying a set
> >> > > > of target audiences and broad strategies that evangelists might
> >> > > > actually
> >> > > > employ.
> >> > > > !!
> >> > > > The fact that an ontology evangelist would use the output of the
> >> > > > summit to
> >> > > > make a case should drive our organization and access to the
> >> > > > collected and
> >> > > > developed material. That is how a site would support the theme of
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > year's summit.
> >> > > > To briefly recap,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We identified a number of different audiences
> >> > > >
> >> > > > who care about a number of different metrics
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We identified a set of benefits that ontology can provide
> >> > > >
> >> > > > with corersponding metrics
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We solicited and collected a number of use cases
> >> > > >
> >> > > > where presumably, ontology actually delivered those benefits
> >> > > > and it is expressible via the metrics.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Remembering why an evangelist would be accessing the communique in
> >> > > > the first
> >> > > > place, this suggests a natural layout... Just to be explicit, an
> >> > > > ontology
> >> > > > evangelist wants to persuade at least the audiences we identified
> >> > > > (+perhaps
> >> > > > others that we missed) using at least the resources we provided.
> So
> >> > > > given
> >> > > > their audience, they?re interested in only a subset of the
> benefits,
> >> > > > metrics
> >> > > > and use cases at any one time. Moreover it would be useful for
> them
> >> > > > to see
> >> > > > which use cases and value metrics apply to which audience member.
> >> > > > So... We should capture these relations in our content, and
> provide
> >> > > > views
> >> > > > into the summit web site according to the evangelist's target
> >> > > > audience.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > (Evangelist (wants_to) convince TargetAudience)
> >> > > > (TargetAudiences value Benefits)
> >> > > > (TargetAudiences respond_to Metrics)
> >> > > > (Metrics measure Benefits)
> >> > > > (UseCases deliver Benefits)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The ValueMetrics Synthesis (
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ValueMetrics_Synthesis
> >> > > > ) already largely captures the mapping between the UseCases and
> both
> >> > > > Benefits and Metrics.
> >> > > > As Michael Uschold noted in today?s meeting, we should be able to
> >> > > > develop an
> >> > > > ontology for the usage framework. I believe it is also possible to
> >> > > > connect
> >> > > > that with the value metrics, and finally connect that to the
> target
> >> > > > audience
> >> > > > to create a tight loop to drive the development of our web effort.
> >> > > > What we need to do is make these relations a bit more formal (and
> >> > > > perhaps
> >> > > > machine readable)! And also, clearly articulate which Benefits
> and
> >> > > > which
> >> > > > ValueMetrics correspond to which TargetAudience. Machine readable
> >> > > > representations are particularly desirably if we want to grow the
> >> > > > usage
> >> > > > example collection and provide dynamic views of our resources to
> the
> >> > > > users.
> >> > > > With such a structure in place, we can then develop a site that
> >> > > > better
> >> > > > corresponds to evangelist needs. Though of course, it would also
> be
> >> > > > useful
> >> > > > to have a presentation scheme that presents the story of the
> >> > > > evolution of
> >> > > > the summit as well.
> >> > > > Are there any volunteers? Might someone in the ValueSynthesis
> track
> >> > > > be able
> >> > > > to extract the relevant bits of the matrix in some formalism? Can
> we
> >> > > > agree
> >> > > > on a vocabulary for audience, benefits, metrics and use case types
> >> > > > in a
> >> > > > machine readable way? <-- This is already informally done in the
> >> > > > communique+tracks to some degree. The results of this analysis
> will
> >> > > > at the
> >> > > > very least drive the layout of the pages+views, and perhaps
> >> > > > facilitate the
> >> > > > technology implementation for the delivery of "nuggets" of content
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > we'll be hosting. We can discuss what a "nugget" of content means
> >> > > > for this
> >> > > > summit...
> >> > > > Best,
> >> > > > Ali
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > (?`'?.?(`'?.?(?)?.?'?)?.?'??) .,.,
> (046)
-- (047)
(?`'?.?(`'?.?(?)?.?'?)?.?'??) .,.,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20110815/a93d2cbe/attachment.html (048)
------------------------------ (049)
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:35:48 -0700
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline
To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <86B51C8B9B7046DDA327003AEBA7D19B@Gateway>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (050)
Dear John, Doug and Richard, et al, (051)
It is clear to me (and probably to all of you as
well) that none of us is going to change his
position on these issues, but we have demonstrated
that we each perceive our self interest, and the
facts and rules we use to maintain those
perceptions, in ways unique to each of us. (052)
Is there a way we can make progress on a self
interest ontology without solving these greater
political problems? It seems to me that a much
more basic understanding of self interest is
needed. Have we reached any kind of a consensus
on the bacterial film, on Use Case 1, or on other
ways to advance the ontology beyond airing our
individualities? (053)
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to proceed in
light of our differences? (054)
Comments, suggestions, constructive ontolog
fragments will be appreciated. (055)
-Rich (056)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (057)
------------------------------ (058)
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:38:46 -0700
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <FDE337A498704D08BDD8509617DA82A7@Gateway>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" (059)
Hi Ali, (060)
Thanks for the reference. I have found a BBC
documentary of the same stripe (??Machines of
Loving Grace??) on btjunkie.com in three parts.
I?ll watch it as soon as I get time. Your
description indicates it might be of great
usefulness to our construction of the self
interest ontology. (061)
Thanks, (062)
-Rich (063)
Sincerely, (064)
Rich Cooper (065)
EnglishLogicKernel.com (066)
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com (067)
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (068)
_____ (069)
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ali Hashemi
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 6:47 AM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest
Ontology going offline (070)
Relevant to this discussion is Adam Curtis' recent
documentary, All Watched Over by Machines of
Loving Grace. (071)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_M
achines_of_Loving_Grace_(television_documentary_se
ries) (072)
He briefly follows how the notion of
"self-interest" as defined by Ayn Rand, exploded
in American culture over the past half century and
the effects it has had. Episode 1 is the most
relevant. It also contains some useful commentary
about the promises and roles of computers and
technology, which are also relevant for the
purported purposes of this discussion in this
forum. If one were so inclined, one might even
find the documentary available for streaming on a
popular video website. (073)
On that note, interested parties might also take a
gander at Neil Postman's speech to the German
Informatics Society back in 1990 -- exhorting them
to examine how do new technologies affect people
and which interests do they serve better? (
http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/postman-informing.html
) It was ultimately an appeal to technologists
(including computer scientists, ontologists etc.)
to consider more carefully how interest affects
the adoption of new technologies and decides which
research streams are worth pouring money into. (074)
Best, (075)
Ali (076)
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:35 AM, doug foxvog
<doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (077)
On Sun, August 14, 2011 23:01, Rich Cooper said:
>
> -----Original Message----- (078)
> From: doug foxvog
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 5:32 PM (079)
>> ... (080)
> >> The "enlightened self-interest"
> opposes:
> >> the persons who act to further the
> >> interests of others (or the interests of
> >> the group or groups to which they
> >> belong), ultimately serve their own
> >> self-interests. A dilemma, a big social
> >> quandary which mothered two polar types of
> >> human society: capitalism and socialism.
>
> > Capitalists and socialists differ only (IMHO)
in
> > the particular way they construe their
> own self
> > interests. Capitalists (i.e.
> businessmen) believe
> > that they can advance their own self
> interest by
> > offering products and services (at a
> nice profit)
> > to markets composed of people who have
> shown they
> > will pay for such. Socialists (i.e.
> rabble rousers)
>> An interesting definition (081)
> Would you characterize Che Guevara's and Fidel
> Castro's killings, imprisonments and torture
acts
> as non socialist? How about Lenin, Stalin,
> Khrushchev, and so on. (082)
I contrasted state Communism with socialism. I
was
referring to the motivations of those who call
themselves
"socialists" today. (083)
> Remember that Hitler's
> party was called, in German, the National
> Socialists. (084)
And lots of countries call themselves democracies
when
they are not. Hitler was distinguishing himself
from
the socialists (and the state Communists) by
labeling
his party nationalist. Socialists are normally
internationalist
-- they are concerned about the oppressed anywhere
in the
world. Hitler wanted people's concerns to be
restricted
to those he considered true Germans. Roma
("Gypsies"), Jews,
and homosexuals did not fall in this category. (085)
> Dictators who decide they have the
> ability to enforce their view of acceptable
> behaviors play upon our human moral basis to
> justify their acts, but that doesn't make them
> proper. (086)
Of course. And it is the antithesis of the caring
for the public good which i was referring to. (087)
> In less gruesome examples, what about
Roosevelt's
> stacking of the Supreme Court, (088)
FDR asked Congress to increase the number of seats
on the Supreme Court because the Republican judges
were ruling that many of the measures he was
taking
to try to get us out of the depression were
unconstitutional.
This has to do with party politics, not socialism.
t (089)
> his insistence on socialist values like stealing (090)
By "stealing", you mean "taxing". All governments
must rely on taxes to fund themselves (unless they
actually do steal the funds or control some
resource
such as gold or oil which they can sell). (091)
The US had federal taxes since shortly after the
Constitution came into force. One of the largest
reasons that the Articles of Confederation did not
work is that the national government had no taxing
power. Income taxes were added to the
Constitution
a couple decades before FDR took office. (092)
> from those he considers well off
> to pay for those he considers Democratic voters. (093)
The spending also pulled the businesses out of the
depression. (094)
> What about Obama's rhetoric
> about bankers and businesses as "needing to pay
> their fair share" when more than 51% of American
> citizens pay nothing at all, (095)
The figure cited was that 51% of US "tax units" in
2009
(which would be households, individual taxpayers,
and
businesses) paid no INCOME tax. All employed
people
(including self-employed) paid FICA taxes, with
everyone
earning under ~$250,000 paying one percentage and
everyone
earning more than that paying less. The tax did
not
apply to earnings on investments, which are
earnings which
those with low wages normally do not have much of. (096)
At the end of the Eisenhower era (when US finances
were good)
most income tax collected by the government came
from businesses.
The very wealthy paid a high percentage of their
earnings over
a certain figure (that was far higher than the
average wage).
The tax rates for the wealthy were reduced
tremendously, those
for businesses were reduced appreciably, and those
for the majority
of people were reduced little. In fact, including
the FICA tax,
the tax rates on the poorest in society have gone
up, even though
they may not pay INCOME tax. (097)
Income tax rates in the US are now the lowest they
have been since
the 1930s. (098)
> and 53% receive some kind of check from the
government? (099)
This number includes Federal employees (including
the military),
private contractors, and those receiving
unemployment compensation,
social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans
benefits, and federal
retirement. (0100)
> Who exactly gets to decide what the "fair share"
> of each group is, and when it isn't enough? (0101)
The people's representatives in Congress in our
system. Politicians
and other people try to influence such votes. (0102)
> > believe they can organize others to force
> > their own self interests into being through
mobs,
> > IMHO. (0103)
>> Certainly state Communists were into
>> forcing their
>> ideas onto others. Socialists, on the
>> other hand,
>> try to better the lot of others because
>> their empathy
>> causes them to suffer when others suffer.
>> They are idealists who feel that most others
would
>> care for people who are suffering as they do if
>> only they
>> make them see the injustices. They have
>> thus struggled for the rights of "oppressed"
>> workers, of racial minorities, of women, of
>> migrants, of gays, and of colonial peoples. (0104)
> Note that, in the process of manipulating these
> large groups of voters and contributors,
> socialists (communists who won't admit their
> complicity with historic (0105)
I'm not sure how someone can be complicit with
actions taken by others before one was born (or
became politically aware). Are all (non-Native)
Americans complicit in slavery and the genocide of
Native Americans? (0106)
> communism so they can claim the moral high
ground) (0107)
You should see socialists of various stripes use
their publications to attack Communists and
socialists
of other stripes. (0108)
> are acting in their own self interests. (0109)
Working in other's interests is working in one's
own
self interest? I guess if one feels a calling to
help others it becomes in one self interest. (0110)
> Is Obama doing this for the benefit of unborn
> generations, or the poor? (0111)
For the current economy of the US. It is in his
interest that the US economy improves. If so, it
would make his re-election easier. Similarly,
some
Republicans feel that blocking anything that Obama
does is in their self interest. If the US economy
does not recover well (other than for the big
business
community) they feel they would do better in the
2012
election. (0112)
So we have the situation that Obama and the
Democrats
are trying to improve the economy, and the
Republicans
are doing everything they can think of to make
Obama
and the Democrats fail. This is the sort of
problem
that occurs when some people only think of their
own
self interest and have no concern for the society
at large. (0113)
> How did he justify the war on Libya without even
> obeying the legal requirement present the plan
to
> congress? (0114)
He actually did notify Congress on time. His
excuse
for violating the law requiring the cessation of
hostilities if Congress does not approve is that
the
situation has changed and that we are no longer at
war. (0115)
> Why has he not even pretended to offer
> a budget for the entire term of his office? Why
> does he accuse the Tea Party members of refusing
> to "compromise", (0116)
Because he gives in 90% on their demands, when
they
threaten to destroy the US credibility in the
world
economy on a matter that the Congress regularly
passes in a pro-forma manner. (0117)
Congress had already voted for a certain level of
expenditure
and a certain level of taxation, with the
mathematical result
that the debt would increase. Voting against the
debt rising
according to the mathematics reminds me of the
Indiana legislature
voting to change the value of pi to 3.000 (to make
calculations
easier). (0118)
> by which he means they should do
> it his way and take more taxes from the wealthy
so
> he can continue to spend the US under the table,
> ruining the chances of future generations to
live
> as well as we did? (0119)
If the wealthy paid the tax rates they did when
you were a kid
(or at least when i was a kid; for all i know, you
are 24 years
old) the US wouldn't be in such financial trouble.
Note that
under Clinton, the US was running a surplus,
quickly eating
away at the Reagan debt, with a healthy economy.
GHW Bush
cut taxes drastically (with a compliant Democratic
Congress)
and more than doubled military spending, with the
not so surprising
result of causing high deficits. Of course, under
Bush, caring
about the deficits was not in the Republican's
self interest.
With the banking crash caused by crooked banksters
taking advantage
of reduced regulation, Bush asked Congress for a
$700,000,000,000
bailout of the banks. This saved the banks, but
not the economy,
so Obama had to ask Congress for a similar sized
stimulus package.
He asked for and Congress passed too small a
package, so the stimulus
barely made up for the cut in spending by the
states and was not
sufficient to really restart the economy. (0120)
Even though the Federal Government was bailing out
the banks, it
did not require them to make safe loans (which
businesses needed
to rehire the positions they let go) or to put a
moratorium on
foreclosures (which would have kept people in
their homes and
by not flooding the housing market with cheap
homes help maintain
the prices of real estate). These failures to act
do not seem
to me to have been in Obama's self interest. (0121)
> The Democrat (0122)
"Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is the
adjective. (0123)
> justifications are legendary. Look
> at the Keynesian policies, which have not
worked. (0124)
They worked in the Great Depression, and in most
recessions
since then. Keynesian economics says that a far
stronger stimulus
was needed to counter the "Great Recession"
according to the
current Nobel Prize winner for Economics. So
Keynesian policies
were not tried in this case. (0125)
> Look at QE1, QE2, the possible QE3 to come, and
> the onerous taxes on businesses that are so
high,
> they won't bring home money made in other
> countries due to the high tax rates? (0126)
Many of the major US companies are paying
little-to-no income
tax. The tax code is so riddled with loopholes
that they can
route funds through a post office box in the
Cayman Islands, and
officially make their money in that cubbyhole to
avoid paying US
taxes. Such tax loopholes need to be closed. (0127)
> Republicans are not better, by the way. Just
not
> socialists. Since you didn't bring up the kinds
> of behaviors they prefer (outlawing stem cell
> research, insisting that the government control
> abortions, creating a monetary system based on
> paper willfulness instead of on gold (Nixon), (0128)
Actually, FDR took us off the gold standard. (0129)
> and so on. I don't mean to single out
Democrats, its
> just that you responded to the consideration I
had
> given socialists, of which the present day
> Democrats are the latest incarnation. (0130)
I guess if you can confuse socialists with Nazis
(who were
fascists who were further right than the current
Republican
party, i can understand that you could label
Democrats with
the same term. (0131)
If you read current socialist literature in the US
(I haven't
looked at one of their publications this year),
i'm sure you'll
find them criticizing Obama and the Democrats for
doing everything
for the capitalists, and ignoring the working
class and the poor. (0132)
> > I know that others will disagree; sorry for
> > the honesty if it affects anyone negatively,
but I
> > stand by this belief. (0133)
> Personally, I appreciate your honesty and
> directness on this issue and others. How are we
> all to get a deeper understanding of our own
> behaviors as well as other people's behaviors
> without such debates? The self interest
ontology
> development absolutely requires such honesty
among
> us interested participants. The danger is in
(as
> I did) discussing only socialists and not their
> countervailing parties and principals. I don't
> mean to do so, but I personally am more aware,
> perhaps, of the errors of socialists than of
> robber barons.
>
> > History shows that there are good people
> > who help others (Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother
> > Theresa, .) but they are so rare as to be
> > handily noted.
>
>> There are tremendous numbers of people who
>> help others, although not so many as on the
scale
>> of those you mention. Look at those who run
soup
>> kitchens, run shelters for battered women, for
>> example. Those who struggle against racial
>> oppression, wars they consider unjust, and
other
>> types of oppression that don't immediately
>> affect them should also be lumped in this
>> category.
>
> Yes, our self interest drives us in such
> directions. Have you noticed that women group
> together to talk about how to make things better
> for women? In the past, men grouped together to
> make things better for men. We all talk about
> making things better for children, but that is
> because we are genetically predisposed to take
> care of our children, otherwise we wouldn't find
> our genes in the future generations.
>
> >> I believe these human issues are more
> >> actual than the talks about the
microorganisms
> >> self-interests, like the pathogens are more
> >> egoistic, while the harmless micro-organisms,
as
> >> intestinal flora, look more altruistic
creatures :). (0134)
> I do too, (0135)
You are responding to yourself. (0136)
> but it is far more complex, full of more
> subtle manipulations, and less open to objective
> debates since it is OUR self interest, not the
> bacteria's, which we have to discuss to do so.
> Most of us have trouble looking at objective
> notions that are contrary, or even neutral, to
our
> self interests. Others of us use objectivity to
> deny to ourselves that we are guilty of it - a
> suppression or repression of said guilt makes it
> easier for us to practice our self interest
> without considering the gates of Buchenwald.
>
> > Evolutionary theorists, like Adam
> > Smithians before them, believe that altruism
is
> > based on shared genetic propensities that
> > benefit the common gene pool.
>
>> Adam Smith knew nothing about a gene pool. (0137)
>> This may be a reason that altruism developed,
but
>> it also may have developed because it helped a
>> small band of people, and thus the altruistic
>> individual, stay alive as well. (0138)
> True; I like your telling of it better than my
own
> original posting. Adam Smith, though, may have
> read Darwin's work, since it caused such a stir.
> Weren't the two contemporaries? I don't recall
if
> they were or not. (0139)
Adam Smith was a century before Darwin. (0140)
>> Be that as it may, morality derived from
>> altruism has become a social phenomena that is
>> taught to most members of society, and is seen
as
>> a good in its own right. (0141)
> That is correct; we have all worked to get
others
> to be altruistic toward us and the causes we
> individually care for. (0142)
That's not what i was saying. (0143)
-- doug f (0144)
>> -- doug f
>
> Thanks for your thoughts and contributions on
> these topics and on the self interest ontology;
> please continue debating it, and modeling it, so
> we can make progress in getting a small scale
> working model that may be the foundation for
> future continued research and development.
>
> Have you noticed that Isaac Asimov's three laws
of
> robotics are designed to force robots to perform
> in OUR self interest, not the robots'? (0145)
With "us" being humankind, not one specific
person.
Altruism was coded into the positronic brains,
thus
it was in the self interest of a robot to protect
people
and to obey their orders (so long as people were
not
harmed). FWIW, Rule 3 is for a robot to perform
in
its own interest, which would be purely it's
self-interest. (0146)
As a matter of fact, in one of his last stories, a
Rule 0
was added, which had priority over Rule 1. That
was that
a robot must take an action necessary to prevent
the
extinction of humankind. Rule 1 became
subservient to it:
A robot may not take an action that causes a
person to come
to harm or through inaction allow a person to come
to harm
unless such action violate Rule 0. (0147)
> If we are
> ever to really implement AI, it will require a
lot
> of rework, IMHO, to our view of how the robots'
> self interests are best served.
>
> -Rich
>
> > Remember that all humans share more than
> 99
> > % of our genes, even 97% with
> chimpanzees and
> > bonobos, so I think the altruistic model
> as common
> > self interest works. That is why I
> incorporated
> > it into Use Case 1. At the bacterial
> level, there
> > is minimal conversation, but messages
> (Peircean
> > signs, as JFS points out) are simplest
> at that
> > level, and we can build on top of that
> once we
> > have an ontological vocabulary for doing
> so.
> >
> > "What are the various trade-offs
> that
> > cause some people to be libertarians,
> > others to be socialists, others to
> be
> > progressives, others to be various
> > flavors
> > of conservatives or liberals."
> > Your Worldview, Philosophy,
> Belief,
> > Values, and Religion. Ultimately, the
> > scope and level of your knowledge.
> Since
> > there are universal truths of
> > society to be recognized by any
> social
> > movements. One of them: the lack of
> > social cohesion (material needs
> and
> > conditions; order, safety and freedom;
> > social networks and interactions;
> social
> > inclusion and integration;
> > equality, equity and life chances)
> is a
> > principal reason of social
> > instability.
> > Azamat Abdoullaev
> >
> > Agreed, but we have to start somewhere
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-admin/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (0148)
|