W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > November 2016

Human Ontology

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:57:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3Mez66pCrQG-gWURQ8hiKrwcx+KQQ8WjeXKZ+VQE5uNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Ranjeeth Thunga <rkt@interposting.com>, Russell Ruggiero <russell_ruggiero@hotmail.com>, Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>, David Shafer <david@stratbase.com>, Chris Fox <chris@chriscfox.com>
Thank-you.  I have changed the subject heading and will review in the
morning (3am here).  Will respond accordingly.

Kind Wishes.

Tim.H.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 at 02:53 Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:

> 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 StratML <http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/index.htm> Committee
>
> Co-Chair Emeritus, xml.gov CoP <http://xml.fido.gov/>
>
> Webmaster, FIRM <http://firmcouncil.org/>
>
> Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur> on LinkedIn | Personal Home
> Page <http://ambur.net/>
>
>
>
> *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 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 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]
>
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 15:58:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 12 November 2016 15:58:30 UTC