RE: Trump vs. Ontology

Tim, a decade and a half ago, OASIS specified Human Markup Language but it did not address our essence as human beings, at least not in terms of values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Markup_Language & https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=humanmarkup 

 

<Value <http://xml.govwebs.net/stratml/references/StrategicPlanISOVersion20140401.html> >(s) is among the core elements of the Strategy Markup Language (StratML) schema.  The others are: Mission, Vision, Goal(s), Objective(s), and Stakeholder(s), along with the name(s) of the Organization(s) compiling the plan.  

 

Although the StratML standard (ISO 17469-1) is primarily aimed at organizations whose plans and reports should be matters of public record, it can also be used by individuals who choose to lead mission/goal-directed lives and need to engage others who share their values in order to achieve their common and complementary objectives.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_Markup_Language 

 

Some of the standard’s prospective use cases are documented at http://xml.govwebs.net/stratml/carmel/iso/UC4SwStyle.xml 

 

Several of President-elect Trump’s plans are available in StratML format at http://ambur.net/index.html#StratML and some of the values he has expressed are documented in these two:  http://ambur.net/stratml/HR2MAGAwStyle.xml & http://ambur.net/stratml/DTTPwStyle.xml 

 

Hopefully, machine intelligence will soon be applied more “maturely” (in the sense of the CMM) to help us not only engage each other more efficiently, on a worldwide basis, but also align our personal performance more effectively with our values.  

 

The first step in helping machines do a better job of helping us is to document our objectives in an open, standard, machine-readable formal like StratML.  See also http://xml.govwebs.net/stratml/carmel/iso/SMLTASwStyle.xml#_2384fab6-208f-11e6-8dd1-b735871eb3cb 

 

BTW, the distinction between machine-readable documents versus machine-readable data is explained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-Readable_Documents  (Note the relevance of that issue to the U.S. election.)

 

Also, BTW, this Google site-specific query <https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Australia&btnG=Google+Search&domains=xml.fido.gov%2Fstratml&sitesearch=xml.fido.gov%2Fstratml>  reveals that Australia is referenced in about 200 of the >3,600 plans currently in the StratML collection.

 

See also http://ambur.net/WildXML.html#PersonalXML 

 

Owen Ambur

Chair, AIIM  <http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/index.htm> StratML Committee

Co-Chair Emeritus,  <http://xml.fido.gov/> xml.gov CoP

Webmaster,  <http://firmcouncil.org/> FIRM

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur> Profile on LinkedIn | Personal  <http://ambur.net/> Home Page

 

From: Timothy Holborn [mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:23 AM
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Trump vs. Ontology

 

Hi Dan,

 

Understood with thanks. With the betterment of hindsight i now wish i had better reflected my views as stimulated by media to me (as an Australian) to reflect upon the principle in which i was attempting to consider rather than the perceived foreign decisions and implications. Certainly my viewpoint has been engendered via socialGraphs, to great concern, whilst also being considerate of the trends pertaining to event and considerations of the broader illustration this provides to otherwise less discussed social considerations.  

 I have been considering the civics.schema.org <http://civics.schema.org>  works for sometime.  These considerations haven't led to much of a useful result, since the discussion about toilets, however; i now wonder what the most appropriate context of this framework could be?  

 

Perhaps human.schema.org <http://human.schema.org>  as to better denote the aspects relating to what it means to be humans.   Surely Civics is a counterpart, yet perhaps not the predicate? 

 

A counterpart of these considerations likely impacts /Person  in a variety of ways.  We don't really have properties such as 'belief' other sentiment analysis related considerations.   perhaps therein, for Microsoft benefit means might exist for contextualising emoticons might become a counterpart of such frameworks. 

 

I seek your sage wisdom. 

 

Seemed to me we have a problem of involuntary echo-chambers that is unintended, therefore indicating a need for supporting cultural ontology in addition to the commercially beneficial sorts.. 

 

Tim.H.

 

[deleted]