Re: Lucky for us.

Hi Paola,

The data base tries to get one thing right.  That is, "domain identifiers" are a complete and persistent archive. In SQL that means that an outer join of the data on the identifier is the same table result as an inner join of the data on the identifier and also but also a minimalist result.
1)  SPARQL done right has the joins right: The code space is less than or equal to the name space.
2)  Wishful thinking breeds wishful theories.  You also have to set up RDF to be cyclic to achieve a minimalist result.  An archive does this by recognizing that an Open Government's App's function is constant although  the resource identifier list may change.  All resources are mission critical, more resources means wider applicability for the App, not a different function.  The archive is DCMI, not an ontology.  I did this also in order to break any implied dependence of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on App functions.
3) An Open Government App expands coverage by using more of the existing domain identifiers, not by enumerating new fad-ish definitions.  When new definitions are based on (secret, of course) insights into the "real truth" then RDF becomes the new PowerPoint (see 1: The poster is hilarious).

All three issues can be handled.  #3 is a particular concern at the moment because the start of a business plan from first principles entails that the same horrible mistakes are made time after time. Social Engineering Theories allow the boundary cases to be ignored.  If your business plan involves a little bit of slavery then absent a jurisdiction where slavery is legal and there has not been such a jurisdiction for 150 years, then you are a moral monster to let the plan proceed.  On the other boundary, Admirals cannot be prevented from sailing their own boats on the weekends - sailors "Like" anything that floats, in case Facebook didn't know.  The whole idea that Social Networking=Social Engineering which frees up ethical "spectrum" and can therefore be called "innovation" bothers me.

When governments treat RDF and the Semantic Web nicely and it will treat them nicely.  The "lightly used Turing Machines, mileage may vary" sticker should have made laypeople suspicious. There is a limit to Artificial Intelligence with regard to governance.  I call it the "Nero Challenge".  Can you program a robot to "fiddle while Rome burns" ?  I think not, because good and bad governance can not both be default behaviors.  Programs do not do that.

That said, the schema and data are free, it is the design which is important, so if users want to stop trying to hack my DB admin password (RTFM) it might save you all some time :-)

--Gannon


[1] http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint



________________________________
 From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> 
Cc: "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Lucky for us.
 


Gannon

thank you, very nice usable interface for this datasets

if posible/relevat Please explain to the laypeople where is RDF/semantic capability in this data, and what
functionality is delivered that would not be delivered by storing the data in any old database or file system

P



On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:

It seems we became a Community just in time to avoid being people interested in the inner workings of government.  Thanks W3C. Now, if we can just manage to avoid displaying any form of "Intelligence" ...
>
>
>The Semantic Web bears more than a little responsibility for that parsing of "Intelligence Community" by suggesting that meta data is immortal and expansive. Versions of applications give this impression, but the truth is, for most data supplied by governments, the data base has changed very little from last year's version.
>
>
>Coverage for an app is not the same thing as "full" coverage of a name space because meta data does not disappear from the data base and automatically reinsert itself at a later time. Yes it does, the Semantic Web said so ... no it didn't, and it doesn't.
>
>
>This data base (downloadable) doesn't argue that silly point.  I hope it helps. Comments welcome.
>
>
>
>http://www.rustprivacy.org/faca/view/
>
>--Gannon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>