- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 00:31:53 +1000
- To: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok05=OXfw65BRt1mUTd_OW-vt8Ss4n54g3NKxYL3v-7UVA@mail.gmail.com>
https://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg spoke of webscience and philosophical engineering. what interest is there in creating a CG about 'philosophical engineering'...? it would require at least a few members, and indeed also; some text, about the purpose of the group. I was considering how i might write a query to W3C luminati; and thought, perhaps, we need a new group. part of the group purpose; imo, could/should be, engaging others who are unhappy about #VaccinePassports and related #AI issues as does relate to the scope of works, involved by members of this group (and implicitly, some of the underlying human values, that may not be well displayed presently via consequence of said works). Could this be an extension of RWW works? perhaps. Yet, I feel as though the sentiments were not as expressly stated; as history now shows, could have been required. upside for W3C? W3C has been a patent pool focused organisation, with little regard for the individuals, on their own steam, figuring out how to 'make a better' (web) 'world', etc. As such, resources are seemingly disproportionately provided on a basis of ideologies (/income focused relations); than may otherwise be considered appropriate from a STEM point of view. worlds in a lot of pain atm... I feel, the RWW community was an embodiment of people (despite some despicable behaviour at times, under duress perhaps but nonetheless - how do we focus on progress); that sought to ensure an outcome that was really about freedom of thought, and support for various human rights considerations overall. Certainly my wealthy family didn't teach me about employing the opportunity furnished by them; as to enslave others. I understand this is not universally the case for others, but we need a way to form different groups to focus on different ideas, as is the case otherwise with w3c cg's - that's increasingly not about software patents, but moreover social license. imo. so, if there's a steward for 'knowledge infrastructure engineering' who is that party; what's the role of W3C? perhaps its a little beyond the old ideas that failed, via the former webizen approach, that wasn't really about the full-ecosystem of 'digital twins' overall. in anycase; just some ideas, but i thought maybe, providing license to help people define, share and form a united (predicated) approach to what shared values for cyber might look like via this group. perhaps, that could be defined; as to better serve the lives of those involved today, and how others get involved overtime - from various disciplines, which seems like it'll involve lots of growing pains, but at least we're growing. subject, to opportunity, etc. W3C has a mandate seemingly, about patent licensing collections; perhaps that can be expanded... Timothy Holborn.
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2021 14:32:43 UTC