Re: Feedback

Sebastian,

my skype is: sailing_digital  I'm happy to chat to you to better understand
you and what you are trying to achieve.

In consideration; I both commend you on reaching out, but also wonder the
underlying intent of what you are trying to achieve and how best to help
you. We do not have enough interested people to help us build the w(orld)eb
we want and any genuine interest should aways be treated with support
subject to shared values (of the basic sort) IMHO.

For me, i have been on a very long journey and participatory means in which
to make a better place for others is amongst the highest values i believe i
share with the vast majority of others in these forum.

Yet, i am still confused about what you are trying to explain and am
responding in the hope it is a better pathway than not responding.

On a basic level;

   - have you tried putting into your authorship of your ideas the output
   in jsonld, n3 or some other form of serialisation?

I have a feeling that if you use some of the semantic tools (which i'd be
happy to work with you in updating the w3 related wiki resources, as many
of the links are defunct (old) and certainly this would both help you
figure out how to define a 'mock-up' of what you are trying to 'invent'
alongside contributing to the broader resources available to webizen in
seeking to help others meaningfully learn / contribute...

I cannot remember the specific page that should be updated with the various
resource links; https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Tools came-up in a quick
google search, but may not be it.

Also, 'semantic web' was kind 'rebranded' to 'linked data' and certainly i
find it frustrating when 'government officials' speak of 'linking data'
without an understanding of differences between what they may be sold and
the various means available (but not very well understood, as its very
important we support people such as yourself in your adventures towards
more knowledge).

   - What's the problem you are trying to solve? What are the real-world
   use cases?

ie: conversation about 'ditching passwords'[1] may or may not be a good
idea, it was just something i considered and figured i'd make a note of
it.  More formally credentials use-cases [2]

   - If you haven't already, perhaps have a look at / study TimBL's
   notes[3]?

I have concerns that you are trying to fix an ignition problem with a
toaster you plan to make from the raw materials[4] rather than a key or
indeed even some wireless alternative. In other words,

These forums are for 'standards' which relate to solving problems that can
be used by other developers freely, as they become standards.

Your works appear to be very different from the output provided by these
standards related groups; and if it is that you are trying to make your own
product for commercialisation, then this is perhaps the wrong place to do
it.

If it is that you perceive a problem that you believe you can fix via some
innovative method that you believe will improve the quality of life for
those who depend upon the web as part of their existence; or that
contributing towards this type of scope of works is something you are
seeking to achieve,

Then perhaps you need to describe the problem / solution factoring more
easily, and if you need help doing it, often google-docs are used so that
people can easily comment. I was once provided (by someone i highly
respect) a link to an old API for Google Docs[5] that could help you
outline the contributors if you felt that was a worthwhile endeavour...

I hope my time yields value for you in moving forward.  FWIW, I am still
confused by your document.

Tim.H.

[1]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Nov/0022.html
[2] http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/
[3] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/
[4]
https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_thwaites_how_i_built_a_toaster_from_scratch

[5]
https://web.archive.org/web/20150319072341/https://developers.google.com/google-apps/documents-list/


On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 at 10:02 Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Trying to follow your advice I've added a Scope section at the beginning
> of the document. The reason why I've found so difficult to describe this
> 'application' is that it is not an application but it is more like a kind
> of (knowledge) backend database where (augmented) RDF and metamodels are my
> 'relational' model. I don't know if exists some kind of 'relational
> algebra' for RDF so I started writing my own. Please tell me if I'm missing
> something important.
>
> Regards,
> Sebastián.
>
> On Nov 17, 2016 1:05 AM, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sebastian,
>
> Writing advice I got early on:
>
> - First write an abstract. If you can't summarize in a few sentences what
> you are doing, then it is going to be very hard for other to understand
> - From the abstract, the following should be apparent
> 1) What is the problem
> 2) Why is it important (i.e. motivation)
> 3) What is your contribution (what is unique/novel)
>
> Your introduction should dive into a bit more detail on this.
>
> You should be answer each of these questions in a succinct and crisp
> sentence.
>
>
> --
> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> www.juansequeda.com
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all, its me again. I'm looking for feedback in this analysis phase of a
> project I'd like to start building soon. The reason I post this draft
> document again is that I've made some changes. I'd like to have some
> orientation in the right directions I should take. I hope not to be boring
> someone but 'cos what I'd like is to build kind of augmented ontologies and
> metamodels, seems like no one is willing to share this approach with me.
>
> Sorry if the document is a little rough written. I've wrote it all on a
> phone...
>
> Best Regards,
> Sebastián.
>
>
>
>