StratML Query Services

Paola, Google does index StratML files and my site-specific query 
feature does work, at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#Google 
However, it does not meet the requirements outlined at 
https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/SMLTASwStyle.xml#_15446932-208f-11e6-a80e-7333871eb3c 
<https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/SMLTASwStyle.xml#_15446932-208f-11e6-a80e-7333871eb3cb>

Google's business model is based upon immature records practices: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document They rely upon 
the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of records management practices of 
others.  If the Web were populated with valid XML documents conforming 
to XSDs specified by international standards development organization, 
myriad intermediaries could index them for the benefit of their 
specialized stakeholders. Hopefully, such services will emerge for 
StratML documents and show the way for other types of records.  When 
they do, Google's business model will be disrupted and the benefits will 
be more widely distributed.  The same is true of the advertising and 
marketing paradigm more broadly speaking.  Consumers will no longer 
tolerate being tracked and inundated with ads they do not care to see.  
Instead, they will come to expect to see and attend to only that which 
is immediately required to achieve their own, personal and 
organizational objectives.  AI can be applied to accelerate progress 
toward that end, by tracking and analyzing the value chains associated 
with the realization of human objectives. The existing schema for 
StratML Part 2 is sufficient to support such progress.

Yes, StratML does include <Description> elements comprised of 
unstructured text, and over time, as the type of information contained 
in those elements is understood, it may be appropriate to extend the 
StratML schema to more explicitly address those concepts/topics.  
Fostering such understanding would also be a good application for AI.  
However, in the near-term, that misses the key point -- which is to take 
advantage of the semantics and structure of the elements that already 
ARE explicitly specified, i.e., the <Name>s of <Goal>s, <Objective>s, 
<Value>s, and <Stakeholder>s as well as <PerformanceIndicator>s of the 
quantitative type.

Regarding your second point, in StratML Part 2, the value chain is 
comprised of <PerformanceIndictor>s of these stage types 
<https://stratml.us/references/oxygen/PerformancePlanOrReport20160216_xsd.htm#ValueChainStageType>: 
Inputs --> Input_Processing --> Outputs --> Output_Processing --> 
Outcomes.  <StartDate>s and <EndDate>s can be associated with each 
<PerformanceIndicator>.  So, yes, as you've noted, Chris Fox's 
StratNavApp probably can leverage that data to remind users of deadlines 
associated with objectives for which they have been designated as 
Stakeholders of the performer type.  The best way to find out is to try 
it out.

BTW, it is also important to note that XML helps bridge the gap between 
documents, data, and metadata.  Elements that have been discretely 
specified in XSDs can be treated as both data and metadata.  All that is 
required is for indexing/query services to take advantage of that 
potential.  MarkLogic's StratML query service prototype did: 
https://stratml.us/references/MarkLogicStratMLQueryPrototype.htm 
Unfortunately, Ximdex's does not: 
http://space.ximdex.net/stratml-portal/ Instead, with exception of the 
Submitter's last name, which is hardly important, they ignore the 
structure and semantics of the schema itself and came up with their own 
inconsistently applied "ontology" comprised of Country, Geopolitical 
Scope, and Organization Type.  While those aspects may be of interest to 
some users, they are not part of the StratML core.  Andre Cusson's 
static hyperlinked indices of goals, objectives, stakeholders, and 
values point in the right direction: https://stratml.us/#Cusson What's 
needed is to provide such capabilities that are dynamic and faceted.

Incidentally, since the GUIDs in StratML files are plain alphanumeric 
text, the Web search engines can index them if they choose.  For 
example, this Google query 
<https://www.google.com/search?q=_ba25b042-92e3-4875-a5d5-389a1f54c910&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS868US868&oq=_ba25b042-92e3-4875-a5d5-389a1f54c910&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8> 
discovers the W3C via its StratML GUID on Andre's site.  However, it 
ignores the original source on the stratml.us site: 
https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/W3CM.xml Nor does is index the StratML 
GUID for the AIKR CG, which can be seen in the plain XML text file at 
https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/AIKRCG.xml and is also present in the 
styled version at https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/AIKRCGwStyle.xml

The GUIDs enable explicit referencing, like this link 
<https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/AIKRCGwStyle.xml#_63f01de6-83e9-11e8-9a9a-23c8e53a5ccc>, 
which points directly to AIKR CG Goal 3: Vocabulary - Define a natural 
language vocabulary to represent various aspects of AI.  The next 
generation of query services should take advantage of such 
capabilities.  In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if our 
group is capable of specifying such a vocabulary for AI in terms of a 
model performance plan(s) in StratML Part 2 format, e.g., by using 
Chris' StratNavApp.

Interestingly, I just discovered that Bing does index the AIKR CG's 
GUID.  Check out this query 
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=_5d94df72-83e9-11e8-8f10-5ac7e53a5ccc&FORM=EDGNDT&PC=HCTS&refig=476e0e06fd2c4e1cbfb9be6e0e87c95a>.  
Perhaps MS may have been listening to my entreaties for them to steal a 
march on Google by taking advantage of the semantics and structure of 
valid XML documents.  It's only a matter of time before someone does.

Owen

On 3/10/2020 9:08 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> Thanks to those who participated in the call yesterday, nice to hear 
> people voices
> and please share follow up emails on the list perhaps?
> Look forward to the summary of actions, Carl please remind us what we 
> are supposed to do
> Two quick points from me
> 1. Chris and Owen said that when they tried it the search function 
> generated with google code over stratml documents didnt work. the 
> first thing that comes to mind is a granularity problem.  If the GOALS 
> in Stratml are chunked as paragraphs, even long wordy paragraphs, and 
> the search function/parser is set to identify individual 
> phonemes/words, then running the query would not yield results, or at 
> least not good ones
> Could it be a question of modelling the documents in a more granular 
> way, or simply attaching more specific metadata/keywords to each set - 
> say, GOALS so that the engines can easily identify matching content? 
> Assume we can add keywords to each section of the strategy plan then 
> these keywords would also have to be added to the search engine (tell 
> the engine what to look for using certain parameters as opposed to 
> guessing). This could increase the precision of the recall
> Let me know if this make sense?  Glad to see that jorge is keen to 
> work on the query, look forward
> to be seeing what he his planning
>
> 2.  is there a workflow/dependency between
> GOAL(s), ACTION(s), OUTCOME RESULT   RECOMMENDATION.more action in 
> StratML?
>
> I have seen in a related post call email that it is possible to set up 
> reminders which I think would do the job, but it would be also good 
> imho to model GOAL ACTION OUTCOME RESULT new action as a set
> Or something similar
>
> Will reply to off list emails soon, thanks a lot for helping to 
> advance this
> I encourage off ist emails to be shared on list mostly for archiving 
> purposes
>
> Thanks
>
> PDM