- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 22:09:12 -0400
- To: public-aikr@w3.org
- Message-ID: <b4449d58-fcce-903f-f584-1ab9cafdbf79@verizon.net>
Here's Wikipedia's description of the meaning of "normative" in the standards development space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative#Standards_documents It seems to me that the relevant distinction is /de jure/ versus /de facto. /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure v. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto /De facto/ trumps /de jure/ in most, if not necessarily all cases, at least in the "free" world -- where "voluntary consensus standards" are the norm. Wikipedia redirects a "voluntary consensus standard" query to this reference <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization>, wherein four levels and four techniques of standardization are referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization#Process The aim of the StratML standard is to /enable/ individuals and organizations to work more efficiently and effectively together in pursuit of common and complementary objectives. To suggest that they be forced to do so, seems like a contradiction in terms... or at least to invite counterproductive resistance. Owen On 3/27/2020 9:40 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote: > Thanks Carl > glad you think so > > normative as in.... > because things are changing all the time// > > actually, could not find a definition of 'normative definition' > > is there a source > > we dont really have a global jurisdiction byt w3c is global > can we assume that we aim to do here is normative > shall we call upon authors who have used HOR in their papers > and invite them to collaborate on a normative definition? > > pointers to a process to deliver a normative definition? > > > P > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 7:43 PM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com > <mailto:carlmattocks@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Yes. A normative definition for HOR would be very useful > > Carl > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 11:28 PM Paola Di Maio > <paola.dimaio@gmail.com <mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I need to reference formally the following concepts and have > not found a good enough source > > *Harms* of allocation refers to unfairly assigned > opportunities or resources due to algorithmic intervention. > *Harms of representation* refers to algorithmically filtered > depictions that are discriminatory. > > https://machinesgonewrong.com/bias_i/ > > I wonder if: > we should aim to include these definitions in our work > are there other types of harm not included in this classification > does someone know of a suitable citation/source other thank > this web page which is great > we should reference harm in our work where relevant > > > > > PDM >
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2020 02:09:28 UTC