On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled > > into contextualized descriptions, > > i guess you refer to data explicit ontologies from resources types () > and from more abstract or meta things (i.e. human values, courage, > lazyness, etc. i.e. blue, red, etc) >
yes :) describing objects with ontologies, or eventually with tags ( and enable a combination of a folksonomy and ontologies to describe objects and relations between them ) > > implicit data (i.e. logs in at same time on fridays, etc) would be even > more interesting to network with..... > > for then stablishing preferences of investments or for simplier > exchanging material things as a excuse for getting in a better human > relation with certain peers (the machine recommends me to > invest/exchange with x related maybe unknown peers) > yes, manual queries using the system, or algorithms for the system to automatically make suggestions > > if instead of preferences we say: requirements (to deal *just* with > "couragous blue" mates), we have a kind of currency.. yes > (flow network is > perhaps more accurate :) and brings the overlap issue: > > > > Somehow, I see a variety of [clauses] , amongst other ontologies > > many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could > > overlap ? > > sure. in (i.e. human values), you shouldn't flow/convert couragous > points into coward points, or you shouldn't use a shareful coward thing > if you don't have coward points... or you should be able to clear your > coward points with courageous points? haha. :) yes... note : or perhaps even before any interpretation into "coward points" ( whatever the objective algorithm / interpretation of such points would be ) , the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :) I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing > i guess this depends on the > owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be > transferable with. > yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use... one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... though perhaps some kind of combination with a folksonomical approach could bridge some of the stiffness of ontological meaning giving ? Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex, and I do not know much about it... > > i imagine i am trying subscribing to "courage" and "courage2" flows in > network x, which are incompatible between them.. owned by different > authors). > > i have overseen some more specifications in this direction, but i am... > aa.. > > :) > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
