Human.schema.org ?

Hi Owen,

In an effort to supply the list with the follow-up from your previous mail
and my subsequent considerations... (some minor edits, but otherwise
similar to my former response.)

The enormous complexity of implications relating to the perceived, recently
illustrated problem as is currently flowing through my mind (which has been
flooded with considerations after the assumption matrix got upset a few
days ago); I am attempting to maintain a progressive & positive stance
towards the development of something that will be assistive in temporal
consideration.  Perhaps interestingly for others, Brexit did not impact me
in the same way as due to my heritage being somewhat English it was my
understanding that some of the historical relationship attributes between
Australia (who's head of state is the queen) and the UK changed
substantially due to EU participation.  Perhaps selfishly, this also
illustrates in modern times ontological attributions perhaps less flexibly
considered than may be deemed valuable to the representatives of citizens
and their public servants/services, across the globe.

Thank-you for your links re: xml, perhaps this is an opportunity in which
we may collaboratively update efforts and do some good for humanity.

The two principle media assets i think are valuable to refer to include;

Eben Moglen (i've created an excerpt of his longer presentation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zXqHIJJVxk
Australian Way (by: Thomas Kenneally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Keneally  ) https://vimeo.com/30416090

I think the world has been impacted by events that have in-effect,
blind-sided massive populations of the world.  In being considerate of the
concepts encapsulated by that considered to be a Liberal arts[1]
education[2]

*"those subjects or skills that in classical antiquity were considered
essential for a free person (a citizen) to know in order to take an active
part in civic life."*

I think we need to shift the discussion from that which particularly impacts
 *free persons* of the USA to that in which the W3C provides service, and
more specifically by way of schemaorg how that may be applied to something
akin to human.schema.org/{classes}#[properties](descriptions)
<http://human.schema.org/%7Bclasses%7D#[properties](descriptions)>.

We have issues pertaining to /values in which #privacy #dignity #rights and
#responsibilities append to /civics /identifiers /biology which is in-turn
i seek to illustrate (in conceptual consideration) as a set of challenging
problems that need to be worked through in an array of forms including
/emotion#fears /emotion#hope /emotion#upset and the many other concepts
that we seemingly share[3] in some way or form due to being human.

by defining a framework for human.schema.org we may refine means in which
to make an obviously distinct from the modern considerations applied to the
term 'person'[4].

If you believe this may be a meritorious undertaking, please let me know.
Whilst i have laboured over this response (in seeking to refine towards a
progressive approach) I have also started to work on the word-cloud and am
interested to know if this sort of undertaking would be considered
meritorious by others.  My skype details are outlined below.

The RDF produced to describe a person was amongst the first works
undertaken in the field.  As noted previously, I seek the sage advise of
the elders, whilst being considerate of the growth of their
responsibilities and my desire to further their work in a manner they're
supportive of in their wisdom.

The practical problems appear to include the variation between temporal
aware concepts (both as is defined in a static and linear manner) alongside
metaphysics and an array of other related issues.   I am also inspired by
conversations of late that have highlighted the need to consider how to
assist in resolving perceived problems both in existing SNS's[5], old-world
media systems (ie; newswires, etc.) alongside emerging 'data by design'
solutions that may natively consume these sorts of work; whereby a tool to
assist in understanding the 'current state of affairs' i find useful, is
the OpenLink dataSniffer[6].

Perhaps we need to figure out what we're going to try to achieve should
this initiative move forward.

I suggest we start in a manner that is not distinct to any particular
jurisdiction and see whether we're able to make some sense of some class
concepts, 'requirement analysis' and perhaps use-cases around what might be
supported by improving the machine-readability of the human condition, as
required by humans acting as agents on behalf of or in tribute of 'things'
or non-human persons. (difficult concepts therein, i hope it makes some
sense).

Kind Regards,

Timothy Holborn.
skype: saling_digital

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Liberal_arts
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k61nJkx5aDQ
[4]
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/07/ai_drones_ethics_and_laws_if_corporations_are_people_so_are_robots.html

[5] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CloudStorage.html
[6] http://osds.openlinksw.com/

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]
>