Re: Ditch OWL:Thing = god? SemWeb 2.0

Hi Gabriel,

On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:21, Gabriel Lopes <gabriellopes9102@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Timothy, very good point, indeed.
> I've tried to find the exact line that associates*:Human* and *owl:Thing*,
> but I didn't arrive to.
>
> But, I've seen that the definition of *Entity *by Roger Clarke is maybe
> being used,
>
> "*An entity is a real-world thing.* The notion [...]"
>
>
I've cc'd Roger - noting: http://www.rogerclarke.com/ID/

Over the many years, I've valued Roger's insights....  Similarly (yet more
recently - only over the last few years) I've felt fortunate to gain some
of the insights / collaboration opportunities with Paul (nb:
https://www.werbos.com/Mind.htm ) - i'm not convinced the specificity of
this ontology - tech standards problem - is within their field of
expertise, notwithstanding the luminary nature of both.

Well,  from this definition, we have an *entity* as being an *instance* of
> Real-World thing class, ontologically speaking.
> What, from OWL's definition of Thing*, may sound a bit contradictory, as
> ontology is essentially the study of *beings* (from *ent *in Latin, which
> later, ~18th, becomes *ont*), and not of Things.
>

A bit of history; from 2000 onwards, in-part inspired by the stories of my
grandfathers cousin - eccles:
https://dana.org/Cerebrum/2004/Neuroscience_and_the_Soul__The_Dualism_of_John_Carew_Eccles/


The designs for an 'information bank' (later updated to 'knowledge bank')
was initially predicated upon the idea that people should - meaningfully
own - their data, as the world migrated from the use of floppy disks to
cloud storage.

Overtime, the work developed in various ways, a few links;

2000: http://webcivics.org/iBank.html
2002: http://webcivics.org/Basedrive.html (after which, i helped start a
business incubator to help disadvantaged (homeless) young persons start
businesses,
https://www.theage.com.au/national/start-me-up-20040619-gdy1tc.html )
2010:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FTUZg0cd8s72dN_HXWqiHotQylDjT5kZ/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103119445892247666269&rtpof=true&sd=true

2012:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13jjiVON6uodPX3fwoiZbvQ43IjzJnOLc/view?usp=sharing
2012:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MnkbM0x2-rKY2nmTML21F8KcBX_dmqdQ/view?usp=sharing
(page 11 in particular)
2013:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOTzwJmgJhuFl7uvKhlUwmUO6FcQXd0_/view?usp=sharing

2014:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMeOqFfR2nJY2KNRIaN-ZWm6oB_eXMz6/view?usp=sharing
2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9vROTibKiE  (produced for:
https://2017.trustfactory.org/ )

There were many opportunities to engage with funding sources - on the basis
that the information collected about people, was fundamentally owned by the
company (in-effect, by investors - rather than people, even if they're
shareholders); whilst the definitions of what this means (ie: knowledge
systems / knowledge age infrastructure - rather than information system /
information age infrastructure); has not been brought about yet, despite
best efforts.

web payments doc (~2015):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pRtTu9EssjhyyK3qkQymZepIUkqCwvMo6imnr4fqsrg/edit?usp=sharing

When
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qy1pCFFArujdUXz6-TksC8r_OyaKFFjBixPjr3g7S_Y/edit?usp=sharing
was produced, i worked to add value to it - which - i think is best
communicated (quick search of the archive) via:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GCFSwPPXjyZQukFhMzjGlfP-rSIFRO-nX4CTs6oWZD8/edit?usp=sharing


Earlier - there was fierce debate about the merit of developing a
credentials CG at all - as the WebID (inc. WebID-TLS etc) tribe fought
aspects of the Web-Payments related group - effectively seeking to limit -
what some considered, the advancement of
https://opencreds.org/specs/source/identity-credentials/ - to be limited to
support for 'Verifiable Claims'
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dYup3KC2nak3LVTzyapr996TKxDj1w5Eyp4g13rQQBA/edit?usp=sharing
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dYup3KC2nak3LVTzyapr996TKxDj1w5Eyp4g13rQQBA/edit?usp=sharing>

Nonetheless - HTTPa work;
- https://news.mit.edu/2014/whos-using-your-data-httpa-0613
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cPK1zhTO3EsKouPxjz488h6_3vB6IEZd/view?usp=sharing

-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-zLsyUnGH_IBWRXib_-c-pgtPcxBj_Gu/view?usp=sharing
And other work being undertaken - of particular note - Melvin Carvalho -
alongside more broadly elsewhere (within W3C & beyond W3C, including but
not limited to ISOC related stuff) - illustrated a 'problem' (from my point
of view) that was the emergence - of what is now considered 'platforms to
protocols' (Non-HTTP URIs) without - good (open) standards around them; so
whilst there's many benefits of being able to put LinkedData on DLTs (DHTs,
Etc.); there wasn't really a method to do so -
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014May/0033.html
provided a solution to that problem, both - as an implementation method,
but also as a methods demonstration.

Yet - as (one of the few) people who was unencumbered (ie; no employer, no
venture capital - just a natural person with an ABN & a rudimentry IP
structure, particularly dependent upon the trustworthiness of datestamp
tools like google docs) in Australia - my ability to better support the
development of particular use-cases, was extremely limited; similarly, the
ability for others to support particular usecases was limited, but not due
to lack of financial resources - indeed, as someone recently noted to me -
we have the funding to make it happen - we just need to pay for it.  The
reality today, is that most engage on the basis that they're doing so
through the lens of an institution / corporation of some form; which
therefore applies a particular sort of lens / filter.  The broader
implication being - a form of competition between the natural world / our
biosphere tenants & many of its most important areas of socio-legal
progress, and the opportunistic benefits - without much care, effort or
investment into addressing many fundamental humanitarianly intrinsic
factors.

I highly recommend watching;  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4397802/  (nb
also:
https://www.amazon.com/David-Starkeys-Magna-Carta-Nicholas/dp/B071G4CSKV )

So, a 'competitive' process has occurred overtime - some ideologies have
become extrodinarily 'successful' in a very short period of time, impacting
billions of people around the world...  Others - still, imo, lack
consideration.  Yet, the question becomes - or moreover - the belief
becomes - that largely - the necessary standards work (re:
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/ ) which is the
purpose of W3C - has, seemingly, now been done; whilst there's lot that
could be done to improve documentation - the ability to deploy solutions -
at scale - is now demonstrated.  Much like the creation of other tools,
such as - a hammer - w3c isn't really about policing how tools are used,
rather, a means to make them - which then leads to the foothills of
'philophical engineering', per-say...
https://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg

As such, with that in mind - the desire to address whether and/or how
'upper ontology' is able to be better addressed - or alternatively
addressed - is not seemingly a patent-pool related issue; the use of tools
produced historically, is well demonstrated; and now, via the OWL
structured ideology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Global_Graph
capabilities are well developed - this ideological structure for the
operation of 'human consciousness' is very well illustrated, the objective
- prioritise - as have been progressed since the late 90's / early 00's (
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-semantic-web/ )
demonstratably pervasive.

But what about the means to afford a capacity to support market-diversity,
what if there's people like me - who want to build ecosystems in service of
mankind that have fundamental differences to the structures of these
systems...

"he or she who will reach and and say, i will positively reach-out and
improve the lives of a billion people" source;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHB_G_zWTbc

The Human Centric infosphere: Artificium Corpora et Sapientiae Universitas
- A non-linear knowledge framework for the electromagnetic operation of
Human Experience
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bDwFjfgvS_snBhnH_TUZgFTrfpW3BzIv/view?usp=sharing

so whilst my documents are always draft, often intended to support concepts
relating to consciousness - in ways that are both - real-world science -
and contended:
https://medium.com/webcivics/theoretical-relationship-between-social-informatics-systems-and-quantum-physics-reality-check-6ce3781d1a29


The construct of these tools into an ecosystem (or indeed also, if the
#ScumbagTech / #ScumbagEconomics issue can't be solved - then it'll be a
process about writing about it, so that others in-turn claim to have
invented it all, etc. ) that supports provonance / humanitarian development
towards a 'knowledge age'
 https://medium.com/webcivics/a-future-knowledge-age-2e3f5095c67
<https://medium.com/webcivics/a-future-knowledge-age-2e3f5095c67>  - has
different needs, to support 'truth telling' infrastructure needs;
https://medium.com/webcivics/inforgs-the-collective-info-sphere-67a660516cfd -
notwithstanding the concept of 'wisdom', being both - out of band &
cermented into the natural agent, imo). this isn't a new concept to me, yet
i fear the continued acquisition of nomenclature developed overtime - and
the ramifications that may have, broadly (NB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM7ZFlToZgY ); one of which, is the
reliability of systems that use english as part of its taxonomy /
inferencing systems overall...    people now talk alot about trust - but
the context of that term - is most often contextual.  Bigger issues relate
to concepts like digital slavery, circumstances where people are herded
into circumstances of artificial beliefs about the world - mining the
concept of 'common sense' like its a 'free corporate commodity' -
regardless of the broader consequences of exploiting those social resources
willfully for short-term gains (usury).


So fundamentally, what i'm looking to continue to make (perhaps foolish
attempts to do) - seeks to figure out how to assemble the peaces produced
in a particular way, which i think is very different to the 'self sovereign
identity' or SSI ideology as they've demonstrated it to be; and, as should
be better queryable via tools like: http://simile.mit.edu/timeline/  - but
isn't...  I do not think i (or anyone who shares the belief / concern) need
to worry about limitations of the existing royalty free 'standards' now
produced - even if - the documentation presently, only really focuses on a
particular form of ideologically bonded pursuit, that has various
characteristics - as does any 'thing'...

nonetheless - epistomological identity therum, the ability to support
natural persons as the core tenant of an information management system
proposal (now many years after: http://info.cern.ch/Proposal.html ) and/or
construction of ontological tooling; raises this question - i thought
reasonably raised with the CGs - about the suitability of the top-level
concept for all addressible consequential concepts - being nowtherefore
appropriately structured under the concept of 'thing' - which seems to be a
very material, commodity related term / concept - supportive of
international trade - but not all encompassing.    A related consideration
was perhaps a top-level concept of 'schema', but there's more discussion to
be had - if others are interested in looking at how to address this problem
also - or if, there's something i've missed - or if - its not considered
interesting - to other members of the group.

Some time ago - i documented some of the underlying considerations (re:
DIDs) relating to the management of commons informatics & means to improve
support for private AI processors to support human agency (via 'knowledge
banks');
https://medium.com/webcivics/permissioned-commons-7fc33a1ce23e
https://medium.com/webcivics/tech-for-permissive-commons-c0961b77249e

As such, if there's a substantive re:design of 'semantic web' works - to
take into account also - the use of non-http based URIs - then its also a
good time to look at top-level / upper ontology, in the present context;
again, seeking support for enhancement of support for various forms of
modalities - without necessarily seeking to revoke support for the way
human kind is engaged with services that exist today, through the attentive
considerations made already by W3C Members.



>
> Actually, that leads us probably to another philosophical intriguing
> question, the *diachronic identity*:
> *"does the identity of a given Entity exists throughout time?"*
>
> So, if the definition of *Thing *itself intrinsically needs the concept
> of Time and Space to exist, and,
>

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0189.html

the definition of *Entity *exists either as a concept, as the logical
> boundaries of a given identity, or as a being, immersed in the material
> world,
>

https://medium.com/webcivics/inforgs-the-collective-info-sphere-67a660516cfd

This diagram: https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*yR3LJBkX1hkymsDlBDqEhQ.png
attempted to better illustrate the 'many-dimensional inter-dependent
ecosystems' (top-right corner)

A "belief" isn't really an entity.  the note / diagram about 'reputation
systems' - seeking to illustrate the difference between a society that
operates on the basis of rule-of-law vs. one that does not (ie: claims gain
greater 'creditworthiness' in-effect, by designs)
https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*OD62QRiDXQd5mBdR_MiFpQ.png

alongside the 'information systems wrongs' which is intended to denote
considerations about systemic productivity implications broadly:
https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*NGagGzFuqyDOwFKOsjrqhQ.png

Noting - some of the points also made:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/members-event/future-liberal-democracies-conversation-henry-kissinger
relating to the construct of systems, to support 'inter-national'
world-order (rather than global); which in-turn relates also, to the means
to meaningfully support democracies & various linked tenants (there's
aspects associated with Human Rights documents),

I personally think - there's some catcching-up to do;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPjEpWw-2J8  - yet as i note again - at
this stage, i'm moreover looking to do what i think is the right thing to
do, via the peace-infrastructure project i'm working on;  whilst others may
have a better method to engender the growth of peace infrastructure:
https://groups.google.com/g/peace-infrastructure-project/c/JrYcxP9Bazc
means to address 'digital slavery', means to promote socioeconomic
considerations for people who do work that is meaningfully beneficial for
others - particularly in areas, where its inappropriate to engender
indentured survitute and/or usury - but rather, form means to make sure
people can have a dignified life, when working on things - that are
usefully good - perhaps overtime, instrumental - even if, the value isn't
seen or comprehendible when the works were first made; there are
environments that exist, that do operate differently - to the way
technology can otherwise be used - i think - part of what i'm trying to
ensure - is that - the natural agent is appropriately supported - as the
foundational tenant to their conscious experience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ2vr2YnSGA not as a 'thing' to be abused
by others (or networks of others) on the basis that no-lawful remedy (or
indeed also - peaceful resolution via courts of law for disputes) by
encouragements to mute the needs of persons - particularly those considered
to be vulnerable -  but rather - means for people to - pursue a life of
peace, fairness & the right to be defended by lawful means to address
issues of injustice, abuse, violence - harms...  exploitation... etc.
 within environments said to be supported to support the needs of factors
like human rights - when the fact is - that's presently something that only
really exists in the 'fake book' section of the library.

Provonance - international support for values said to be core to the values
of all americans like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress
- how are those sorts of considerations, made so long ago, now supported
internationally - in support of members of our human family who depend upon
the ICT infrastructure provided by the USA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(law) policy implications?

are we as natural persons - the puppets, or the puppeteers?
idk.


> So, IMHO, *Human, *and its cognition-related faculties should be
> subclasses of *Entity*, instead.
>

Interesting idea...  Yet i'd feel far more comfortable about seeking to
write down what it should look like - if there was a way to process the
considerations, the views of various peoples - based upon different
predicates, etc.

Which i think may be in-part beyond the realm of W3C - therefore:
https://groups.google.com/g/peace-infrastructure-project/c/JrYcxP9Bazc

But thereafter; if there was an undertaking to figure out 'Semantic Web
2.0' or similar - including but not limited to - figuring out how to
address any 'short-falls' considered reasonably problematic by sufficient
quorum to justify the works, then my preference would be to figure out how
to support the growth of W3C's ability to address these sorts of
opportunities better - rather than considering 'the web' to be HTTP centric
- but idk...

If there's interest on the list - let me know - if not - then - i intend to
be pursuing a rationalisation method of these 'top level ontological'
issues - via the peace-infrastructure project noted above (extension of my
'web civics' works, in-effect);  whilst also noting - that the purpose of
that project is intended to be slighly more intentionally pragmatic; for
example,

advancing stuff like
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11RyMqL002R4A2SSkZeW8TgQgdmOgNjET/view?usp=sharing

-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15GmlwzZRX_LDFSe4j9wEO_-LkBLLaIca/view?usp=sharing
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OLoW5vCRD6rDuqed-hJh53s1lTReBF7t/view?usp=sharing
(alongside many others known; and those that are sought to be brought about)

rather than simply 'web standards' work, as was thought to be an important
required process in the past - but that now, IMHO - the greater requirement
- is to set-out / up - foundational systems that support the needs of human
beings, who wish to be treated fairly - who seek - digital agency (ie: RWW
/ Solid like stuff) - who seek - to engage, via systems not unlike:
https://slicingpie.com/  - to support basic expectations relting to their
work activities ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day  ) on stuff
- that - includes addressing these sorts of 'problems' (percieved or
real?); upon a basis, that - the intent ( ie: http://webdev.intent.eco/ )
is about furthering an ecosystem, that is now clearly able to be
illustrated to be different to the demonstrated 'intent' of SSI Folk as
became influenctial from 2016 onwards; and, whilst the circumstances are a
little like the browser-wars, the ability to ensure market-diversity at
that time - has now changed to display different characteristics in many
ways - i personally believe - the work, i'm seeking to further develop - is
perhaps an important part of protecting against an array of unwanted
potential futures, ranging from splinternet to others...

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aigR2UU4R20
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zXqHIJJVxk

End of the day,


>
> Thank you for bringing that into the discussion,
> and I hope that enlightens somehow the problematic.
>
> Best wishes;
> a great week for everyone.
>
> **owl:thing: **"The class of OWL individuals." ;*
>
>
>
Thankyou, and i hope my writings are helpful.


"Considering that "Money must serve and not govern" (Evangelii gaudium, Nr.
58) and that the seeking of material well-being cannot adversely affect
dignity inherent to the members of the human family;"
source: FUNDAMENTAL CHARTER OF CHRISTIAN ETHICAL FINANCE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U2jQ0FvCOuLIawIs9VrXV-3ygm47Iqh2/view?usp=sharing

As a member of a cohort of humanity (western, 'english' speaking world -
notwithstanding the inclusion of europe), that is in-fact a minority of the
souls of our world (~1.5Bn overall); I am convinced that OWL is not
appropriately structured for all purposes - that are operating now & are
likely to exist into the future.  If there's a re:structure, that leads to
ontologies being distributed via systems that either use DID or something
like it - as to support knowledge representation / communications - the
ability to assert representations (ie: fiction, non-fiction, date,
assumptions, circumstances, etc.); then, imho, this meaningful
consideration - about how to preserve & enhance support for 'freedom of
thought'
 https://www.webizen.net.au/about/executive-summary/preserving-the-freedom-to-think/
<https://www.webizen.net.au/about/executive-summary/preserving-the-freedom-to-think/>
and what - wrongs look like, or at least, how to represent circumstantial
cases - based on the accessible entirity of facts - so that disputes can be
debated via various proper forums (courts, houses of parliaments, community
groups, etc.) - how the representation of a person, can be enhanced to
better support human dignity - indeed - i note - i find it fairly dangerous
to seek medical care (ie: i have a prosthetic eye - last made when i was
bout 15-16, i'm now 44 - my head has grown -
https://artificialeyes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Care-of-your-artificial-eye.pdf
- but the consequences of the designs of systems (and profiteers, today) -
is that i can't get this done without feeling unsafe / associating the
experience to abuse; which impacts me greatly., ); as clinicians ask about
what i've been doing in past - then write statements suggesting that i'm
delusional - suggesting my statements about long-term participation in
groups like this - never happened - when these people - realise their wrong
- they don't correct the issue.   they just run away, because the way the
systems work today - that's what they economically benefit from doing; on
the basis, that, carelessness about the harms is entirely supported - save
circumstances of violence...

Historically - i ended-up having to do a bunch of work relating to:
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/2009/anti-human-trafficking-manual.html
<https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/2009/anti-human-trafficking-manual.html>
(see module 3 & 4); which was horrific stuff, whilst others - prosecuted
for profits and whilst laws have since changed - but - how do the systems
(ie: credentials cg
https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/2014/08/06/call-for-participation-in-credentials-community-group/
) - who were the beneficiaries, in the end?  As was sought from the outset
- https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*whjhzHypf0Xuhi3dJBEJcA.png  - how do
these systems help people, made - poor, homeless, in fear for their lives -
seek access to justice?

There's real-world implications linked to the operation of information
systems; and the ideologies associcated to the designs of these systems
(what is supported, what is not, and so much more); which can result in
significant TechDebt.

So / yet, rather than engaging in violence - seeking to accept the flaws -
particularly given what i've seen of the implications - i'd prefer to
continue to work on solving the problems that i sought to address via w3c
works (not exclusively) so many years ago - that now - are still not
addressed, which i don't consider to be useful infrsatructure for the
support of peace & human dignity, etc..

Whilst the camera's never turned-up on the day (which totally destroyed the
purposeful design of the conference structure) i was lucky that someone
helped out:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCbmz0VSZ_vr9VW6CjOqyYVedHw_Ql2fa -
and back then, particularly when i look at the panel discussions - i now
think,

If that's still not really part of what W3C participants want to help
ensure is an option (with ontology in english) - then that's ok - perhaps
there's a way W3C can signify that better (seems to me, its been doing its
best to attend to 'emerging issues', in difficult circumstances, imo) - idk
- equally - if i'm just ranting about stuff that is based upon false
assumptions - then i guess that's a better outcome; but i still don't know
the answer - happy to hear it, if its available...

From a instigating process - of trying to update the personhood ontology
work i started, now some years ago, and whilst i was working through
updating it (nb the existance of:
https://groups.google.com/g/scientific-basis-of-consciousness ); i just got
stuck - looking at protege - thinking - i don't think its right (morally)
to model these concepts about consciousness, human agency - stuff relating
to the semantics of how the intent, beliefs, underpinning circumstances
relating to their actions and ontological routing capacities relating to
the moral responsibilities of persons (
https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*iGzdEyUWAzT7TDjU6IUvTQ.png ) - 'thing'
just seems to be fairly platform possessive, obviously there's legal
ownership relations relating to those platforms & linked contracts - but -
thought i'd raise the considerations, see if anyone else saw merit in my
deliberations overall; and if so,

What direction that might take in terms of - diversification / updating -
to 'SemWeb' stuff - as is otherwise noted.

Yet - perhaps the philophical stuff needs to be worked through, before a
proposition can be put forward to the W3C CGs...  IDK.

anyhow; i think that's a fairly comprehensive summary of my thoughts
surrounding this 'top level ontology' question - as does relate to
consciousness & causation / causalities - in-effect.   I can't see how OWL
is any more than to support all things to all (natural) people; and people,
aren't just 'things', whether they've got one of more UUIDs applied upon
them or otherwise - i'm still working on providing greater strength to a
betterment of available modalities linked to the world in which we seek to
teach children and future generations - how to become successful, as a
person.

Kind Regards,

Timothy Holborn
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ubiquitous/
https://medium.com/webcivics/humancentricwebecosystems/home



>
>
> Em qua., 7 de set. de 2022 às 12:17, Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> How is W3C not the international standards body for commercial
>> infrastructure of the use of 'things', from a technical standpoint.
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022, 1:13 am Timothy Holborn, <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> oh, overall; whilst the existing modalities are so very well supported -
>>> does that give rise to ensuring other modalities are made unable to emerge?
>>>
>>> in english, at least, i guess..
>>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 01:12, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been out tonight, so might not be the best idea to distil the
>>>> complex concept into a single line... but..
>>>>
>>>> are you nothing more than a thing?
>>>>
>>>> Should we promote this ideology in academic curriculum materials for
>>>> all young people - so they know they're place (/rights, essentially) in the
>>>> world...?
>>>>
>>>> Timothy Holborn.
>>>>
>>>> Timothy Holborn.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 17:17, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Timothy, I cc the AI KR CG list, because OWL is described as KR
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding (Not an OWL expert myself) is that owl:thing is
>>>>> necessary due to the choice of OWL being based on logical hierarchy, whreby
>>>>> thing is an abstraction for the upmost entity in the upmost category
>>>>>  and if it makes you feel better, you could probably mask it with
>>>>> another label (such as owl:anything) without breaking it
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont think there is a case for ditching or breaking OWL,  but rather
>>>>> for understanding itse limitations, there is some good reading pointing to
>>>>> possible workarounds
>>>>> You could of course look further and start thinking beyond OWL
>>>>>
>>>>> this seems a good read in that direction
>>>>>
>>>>> Empowering OWL with Overriding Inheritance, Conflict ...
>>>>> https://www.aaai.org › Papers › Symposia › Spring
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjG3dHdjoL6AhW6ilYBHek2AWIQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaai.org%2FPapers%2FSymposia%2FSpring%2F2009%2FSS-09-08%2FSS09-08-013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3VyQX7GXzZ8mrmiinnvBxa>
>>>>> PDF
>>>>> by S Hosain · 2009 · Cited by 9 — ing *multiple* different types of
>>>>> *inheritance* with overrid- ing, and non-monotonic reasoning
>>>>> The popularity of OWL for knowledge representation
>>>>> in the Semantic Web applications makes it an attractive
>>>>> platform. Although OWL supports some form
>>>>> of object-oriented features for knowledge structuring
>>>>> and maintenance, it is significantly weak in capturing
>>>>> most essential object-oriented features such as single
>>>>> and multiple inheritance, default class values, methods,
>>>>> overriding and encapsulation in their true spirits.
>>>>> It is also weak in extending reasoning support for intelligent
>>>>> knowledge processing. Such features are becoming
>>>>> increasingly essential in applications such as
>>>>> social networks, e-commerce and knowledge rich ontology
>>>>> for Life Sciences. In this paper, we propose
>>>>> an extension of OWL toward a more powerful knowledge
>>>>> structuring language, called OWL++, by supporting
>>>>> multiple different types of inheritance with overriding,
>>>>> and non-monotonic reasoning capabilities within
>>>>> OWL. We demonstrate OWL++’s computability and
>>>>> implementability by presenting a translational semantics
>>>>> of OWL++ to OWL, for which we have robust execution
>>>>> engines while for the reasoning component of
>>>>> OWL++ we rely on Jena to support rules in OWL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I hear SHACL could be useful used in conjunction with OWL
>>>>> https://www.semanticarts.com/shacl-and-owl/
>>>>>
>>>>> There is tons of stuff be the looked up I think, as starting points
>>>>> for workarounds
>>>>> and beyond OWL futures
>>>>>
>>>>> Let us know if you have the chance of conducting further analysis
>>>>> and send us a summary of your findings
>>>>>
>>>>> PDM
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:51 PM Timothy Holborn <
>>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still befuddled as to whether my analysis has merit or if there's
>>>>>> something basic I'm missing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noted a concept sometime ago about "human centric web" or "human
>>>>>> centric AI", etc.  (Early credentials CG work).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ontology Dev environments like protege use
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl therefore anything modelled after it
>>>>>> is a subclass of owl:thing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started on a personhood ontology
>>>>>> https://github.com/WebCivics/ontologies/blob/master/personhood.ttl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet, now I'm trying to do some modelling for consciousness & various
>>>>>> aspects relating to human agency, where the idea of structuring it all as a
>>>>>> subclass of owl:thing, churns my stomach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking about forming a broader upper ontology, and thereafter
>>>>>> the implications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also considerate of DIDs, which, from my point of view was always
>>>>>> about ontologies on DLTs (particularly commons), understanding - making
>>>>>> tools, isn't necessarily about a particular usecase / implementation
>>>>>> structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, thinking is; if there's a time to break owl:thing (providing
>>>>>> diversity) perhaps you hat time is now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or am I missing something simple / fundamental, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The underlying consideration is impacted by modalities, whereby there
>>>>>> may be a lack of diverse options available; if the tools aren't present to
>>>>>> do it, distorting the wave function, via "things", perhaps unnecessarily /
>>>>>> impactfully,  imo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Timothy Holborn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> --
> Gabriel Lopes
> *Interoperability as Jam's sessions!*
> *Each system emanating the music that crosses itself, instrumentalizing
> scores and ranges...*
> *... of Resonance, vibrations, information, data, symbols, ..., Notes.*
>
> *How interoperable are we with the Music the World continuously offers to
> our senses?*
> *Maybe it depends on our foundations...?*
>