Re: Simple 'Graph tech' videos...

On Fri, 17 Sept 2021 at 14:06, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would really appreciate some simple, designed for people who barely
> understand how to use a smart-phone / apps; videos (youtube, etc.)
> about how RDF / SemWeb / Graph tech works.
>

Good question.  I'm not sure what the best point to jump in to RDF / SemWeb
is in 2021.  It's scattered around the web a bit.

There's also RDF is not quite the same as the "semantic web" (small
letters) which I take as being human and machine readable data

Most of this group are well versed in RDF and related standards.  10 years
ago there was a push to make it a lingua franca for the web

Arguably developers have not fully embraced that push, leaving us in a
world where there are multiple standards to read (human and machine) and
write.

Personally, I think that's something to embrace, rather than fight (I've
done many years of RDF evangelism too!)


>
> It seems, if you try to talk about the ability to pull data from 'the
> network' people have NFI how choices relate to their rights (re: use of
> public funds) to support #AccessToJustice.
>
> In-turn; this gets to the heart of why RWW was an important thing to spend
> countless hours progressing freely, in the interests of #HumanRights, etc.
>

This group is simply about using standards to read and write to the web

W3C has traditionally had a royalty-free patents policy, so we operate in
the spirit of protocols of the web being unencumbered by founders' taxes

This doesnt automatically dove-tail into human rights and values.  Put
simply, the web cannot be said to have any one set of values, because look
at all the different values it represents

Re "better for humanity".  Well intended actions can have negative
consequences, and bad actions can have good consequences.  You can only
hope to lean towards the good side, in whatever way you operate

So, I think a more pragmatic approach is to use standards to build things,
and where there are gaps create new standards, and see if they catch on


>
> Far beyond the CG filled with unpaid contributors; W3C obviously
> incorporates an array of global organisations.
>
> Perhaps they should also be asked to provide, for humanitarian purposes,
> simple videos to explain what it is and how it is, they're so very involved
> (via humans) in deciding the future of our inalienable human rights; and
> whether or not, it'll end-up getting better for 'consumers' / 'humanity' at
> large.
>
> The RWW Community was established on forging a future that was intended to
> be 'better for humanity', as far as i'm aware; as far as i am aware were
> the predicates; linked to 'patent pool protected' royalty free standards,
> as is required to protect freedom of thought.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zXqHIJJVxk
>
> tell me, by all means, the sentiments about human rights are not shared.
> I will then be empowered to employ those statements to make better
> decisions in future.  Yet, its impossible presently for me to believe that
> the consequential commercialisation schedule for linked 'technologies', is
> driven by anything other than those so focus on the money; when so many
> worked, without that in-front-of-mind; other than to seek benefit, for
> having made awesome work (with others) for the betterment of humanity..
> etc.  Seems to me, so many who took-up the consequence of these works,
> don't understand it; and, well.  how does it actually help the vulnerable
> when governments say, it'll be used to limit socio-economic participation
> to those who do not have a valid W3C credential at that time.  As i engaged
> with, years ago, WebID via its documentation; did not support the various
> elements required to support an ecosystem that could in-turn support human
> agency, with AI.
>
> notwithstanding conversations about 'personal ontologies' or whatever
> else; the world is in distress.
>
> As far as i can tell...  And, given my heritage being linked to a large
> pathology company (and pathologist) it also doesn't make any sense to me,
> other than to commercialise globally a health-system via tech, as to forge
> a solution intended to improve the circumstances of Americans.
>
> from 2015 (pre-chartered, as was the intent of the call, to get done);
> https://soundcloud.com/ubiquitous-au/credentialscgtelecon2015-06-02medical
>
>
> The humanity of a person should only be attacked on the basis of facts.  I
> have alot of facts, but some relate to vulnerable persons relating to
> use-cases about vulnerable persons, that are fairly undignified for the
> 'data subject' to disclose.  So tell me, about human rights? What do you
> support?
>
> because facts should outweigh the benefits of wrong-doings, afaik; or tell
> me,show me why those sorts of moral values, those sorts of philosophical
> engineering[1] considerations are actually false.?
>
> as i've survived, stuff, others have not.  I see no dignity for having
> done the right thing, by the choices others have made leveraging the
> circumstances in which the dignity of others should be preserved.  IMO
> there are several areas relating to the future of human dignity[2] that
> need to be better figured out than my intentionally crappy works[3] linked
> to an identifier[4] harmed, without available legal recourse; in addition
> to the fact, that the harms made, resulted in distortions of various forms
> as to manufacture a case that has not reasonable association to reality; as
> is a form of causality related attack, for the benefit of those who
> succeeded.   If the implications were just about me, that wouldn't lead to
> a complaint about it; rather, i'm seeing stuff, protests world-wide, that
> seemingly may support an underlying reason for it, impacting millions if
> not billions.
>
> Fact is, if human rights were important, there'd be an RDF ontological URI
> Framework for it.
>
> please, by all means, send me those URIs, show me how i started the work
> on them; after they were already made by others...  because, regardless of
> the issues - these sorts of URIs are important,
>
> for humanity.
>
> given the apparent absence of them;  where are the videos showing, for
> kids, what's being made to impact their lives via 'vaccine passports' and
> related 'web infrastructure' as is impactful upon their human rights[4]...
> as when others in the commercial space tell me, i wasted my time; it's hard
> to provide evidence to show reasonably why i should disagree with their
> rational point of view on it.
>
> yet, if i had of not made the 'royalty free, patent pool protected' 'web
> means' for 'freedom of thought', then i'd be far richer, having a
> completely different sort of life; as may be best demonstrated to others
> who may in future face a choice about what it is the best thing to do,
> is...
>
> #Causality. It has implications, imo.
>
> Regards,
>
> Timothy Holborn.
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg
> [2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/pages/udhrindex.aspx
> [3] https://github.com/webcivics/ontologies
> [4] https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
>