- From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 10:21:21 +0800
- To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Cc: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMXe=SrsxEeLADfMStKOrad6iupR8FQK+op=H67jxL=nrDb=aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you Owen Yes, I know of the many definitions of normative thanks for the pointer to de facto (although I do not use wikipedia as a source) what about ''normative definition''? we may have to define the expression what is a normative definition am I being too pedantic? PDM On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 10:09 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote: > 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> > 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> >> 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 02:22:15 UTC