Common discussion ontology

Ερωτήσεις, συζήτηση, ιδέες και προτάσεις για την κεντρική σελίδα, το φόρουμ, το wiki και τις υπόλοιπες ψηφιακές υποδομές.

Common discussion ontology

Δημοσίευσηαπό ScStef » 10 Μαρ 2013, 16:36

Michael - Votorola developer
Marc, Alex - members of Pirate Party Germany, AG Meinungsfindungstool (AGM) (Opinion making tool)

Marc said: Where would you locate Votorola inside this picture?
=====================================================================================================================================
Michael said:
To answer your question, our purpose is to coordinate plans of action (i.e. to achieve public autonomy) by the method of discussion aimed at mutual understanding and consensus (i.e. public opinion). In your diagram, this translates to "position forming" (Standpunktbildung) based on a discussion system.

So we're sitting at #2. That makes us competitors. We (Votorolans, Outcasters) have been at this for years, where you (AGM) are just getting started. But I welcome your offer to cooperate, because I fear that otherwise we might do harm to people. If either of our platforms were ever to establish itself as a de-facto monopoly that suppresses other choices through network effects, then users and citizens would be robbed not only of their freedom, but also of the opportunity to be the authors of that freedom.

How can we cooperate to prevent that?
=====================================================================================================================================
Marc said:
Currently the working group AG MFT tries to establish several kind of prototypes of a) one concrete methodology (qkonsens), b) concrete portal/web site (probble.de) and c) concrete Common Discussion Standard based on an ontology and a web api (disco.codeplex.com).
As you put it, all our work is part of #2 (Discussion System) within the overall decision-making process. But nevertheless, I don't think that our working group wants to be competitor to any other project in this area. Our aim is rather to cooperate with as much projects as possible.

Unfortunately the progress of our working group based on our volunteer work is not as fast as I would like to see it. For a better progress our working group divided into the following four teams:
a) Ontology Definition Team (ODT) - deals with the ontology specification.
b) Prototype Core Team (PCT) - deals with the implementation of a database schema based on the ontology and a web api to access the data in a restful way.
c) Prototype Plug-In Team (PPT) - deals with the implementation of concrete discussion methodologies.
d) Public Relations Team (PRT) - deals with our 'public relations' ;o)

My individual next tasks are in terms of the PCT a) to create a conceptual description of our d!sco prototype on CodePlex and b) creating a first implementation of the Web API.

As soon as this is established, I would like to invite you to brainstorm about possible collaboration. From our point of view this is a question of how to make the data available for all other interested parties. Because our goal is to define a common discussion ontology, inspired by and particularly based on eDialogus (http://www.imc.com.gr/ontologies/eDialogos/consensus/).

So the overall question to be answered from your side is: Do you want to participate in such kind of standardized ontology to enable easy data exchange with any participating tool?

I would like to welcome you. What do you think?
=====================================================================================================================================
Michael said:
Thank you.  It depends on how you answer my previous question.  As I point out, unless we address the network effects at the root of the problem, then (regardless of the ontology) all users will be forced into the same platform.  Users and citizens will be robbed not only of their freedom, but also of the opportunity to be the authors of that freedom. How can we cooperate to prevent that?
=====================================================================================================================================
Alex said:
Maybe this is the way to bring forward "vote mirroring"
=====================================================================================================================================
Michael said:
That's one possible answer.  I don't know if that's Marc's answer. It's often difficult for competitors to understand each other.  But we must be clear on this issue.  A platform cannot succeed without users. There are two ways to obtain those users:

  (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus levelling the playing field and enabling the users to range freely from platform to platform.

This is the right way.

  (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.

This is harmful and unnecessary, and therefore wrong.

These are the only ways.  There are no grey areas in between.  If our choice is not (1), then it is (2), and no responsible engineer will cooperate with us.  Instead he'll point to the danger and warn us not to proceed.

What should we do?
=====================================================================================================================================
Alex said:
I'm ALL IN on (1), and I think that's what the "Ontology" is all about. Its a way to map one platform onto another, ... where platform is called a plugin when it comes to AG Meinungsfindungstool. But as mentioned in discussions way earlier, these plugins do not necessarily plug into something, but instead into each other, ...which means a plugin is just a platform that uses ontologies for "Vote mirroring" :-)
=====================================================================================================================================
Marc said:
That is also my understanding.

The Prototype Core Team (PCT) don't want to encourage one special implementation. Instead we want to enable all participating implementations to collaborate. Indeed this needs an agreement on a common understanding of "something".

I would like to refer to this little "something" as the Common Discussion Standard (CDS). We want to describe the CDS with the help of an Ontology to picture the "data" part and a Web API to cover the possible "workflows".

Finally the CDS is what enables plug-ins to plug into each other.
=====================================================================================================================================
Marc said:
I think most of the members of our working group AG MFT are towards (1).

At least the Prototype Core Team fully agrees. So far our solution is not to build yet another discussion/voting/collaboration/networking tool, but to define an environment where tools can plug in and share data and extend workflows. The working title for this is "d!sco" (Discussion Ontology) Framework.

The PCT don't care much about distinct methodologies of discussion/voting/collaboration/networking as far as they don't influence or concern the overall process of decision-making. The idea is to achieve an agreement between all participants on the Common Discussion Standard. This standard consists of an ontology and a web api to enable communication between all implementations.


Our goal is to enable cooperation by defining a standard. This is how the internet succeeds. Defining a standard that everyone can implement to gain benefit from it. The main benefit of CDS is to obtain users and to preserve data.

Does this make sense?
=====================================================================================================================================
Michael said:
Here CDS is [2] and Liquid Feedback [3].  If CDS obtains its users by counter-monopoly means (1) as opposed to monopoly means (2), then the party is finished.  The people of Germany (for example) will be able to form and express their public opinion (position) as a whole without being divided by separate platforms.  Decisions of the Bundestag [3]
will then be informed *directly* by that whole.  The party will no longer have a function in this process.  It will therefore disappear (along with other political parties).  Do you see what I mean?

This is why moving in a radical, counter-monopoly direction (1) will face strong resistance from within the party.  No political party can survive without (2) a monopoly over its internal mechanism of position forming and expression.  It's impossible.

I apologize, because I knew something about this before and failed to see the connection until now.  I thought you could simply give (1) a thumbs up and (2) a thumbs down - end of debate - but it's not so easy for a loyal party member to steer that course.
=====================================================================================================================================
Marc said:
A) One of the main paradigms of the Pirate Party is: "If we have reached our goals, then there is no need for the Pirate Party anymore!"
Therefore, no - there will be not much resistance on the way towards (1), because the Pirate Party is more like a movement than a party. And if not, I will quit my membership.

B) Why do you do not want to merge Outcast and CDS?


I am still towards (1) and I don't see any reason not to be. But I guess we have some basic misunderstanding here.

So let's condense the goal:

a) Let the users freely choose their favourite tooling,
b) while the whole discourse is covered and
c) without any loss of data.



What is the point now?
=====================================================================================================================================
Alex said:
That's the long term goal of the pirate party ;-)
I don't think that pirates do politics for fun, its just a necessity.

That's the sole purpose of the pirate party, to vanish! :-)

>This is why moving in a radical, counter-monopoly direction (1) will
> face strong resistance from within the party.  No political party can
> survive without (2) a monopoly over its internal mechanism of position
> forming and expression.  It's impossible.

That's why the pirates wont oppose it, because it's goal is to vanish!
Τέλος στην πελατεία, ναι στην πειρατεία!
ScStef
 
Δημοσιεύσεις: 62
Εγγραφή: 30 Ιαν 2013, 01:43

Επιστροφή στο Διαδικτυακές υποδομές

Μέλη σε σύνδεση

Μέλη σε αυτή την Δ. Συζήτηση: Δεν υπάρχουν εγγεγραμμένα μέλη και 2 επισκέπτες

cron