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

Re: Human Ontology

From: Azamat Abdoullaev <ontopaedia@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:45:22 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKK1bf_rKfWuiwi73Q74fOfMSiFLndKnyi5oANnUAAQhrRy6GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "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>
 Human ontology: On the essence as human beings

http://www.slideshare.net/ashabook/homo-sapiens-or-homo-brutus

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 Monday, 14 November 2016 17:45:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 November 2016 17:45:58 UTC