Process and Exchange flows

[bhaugen]

We're doing some remodeling of the NRP core model that may result in some changes to this vocabulary as well.

This is deep in the weeds, and I wonder if anybody else would be interested in thinking with us in some way. It is something that anybody who wants to implement economic networks of any kind will need to understand. For example, IPOTables will need to go there.

Fairly short explanation:

Fully detailed resource flows go like: resource->input->process->output->resource->take->exchange->give->resource-> etc. Or, shortened: [R]->(P)->[R]->{X}->[R]-> or shortened more, (P)->{X}->(P)->{X}->

The Sensorica network does not use internal exchanges very much, so for them, we have elided the exchanges, and just go: [R]->(P)->[R]->(P)->[R]-> (Which might also be how IPOTables thinks about it, except as far as we have seen, they are working on the recipe level (of the levels recipe, plan and event)).

We are now working with a different network where the processes are less important than the exchanges, so we are selectively implementing resource flows that elide the processes, and go: resource->take->exchange->give->resource-> etc. or [R]->{X}->[R]->{X}->[R]->

In doing that, we are also implementing Exchange Types that are similar to Process Types, so this network can do recipes of exchange-oriented resource flows.

We have code for the Sensorica process-oriented flows that generates plans from recipes, backschedules from due dates, forward schedules from start dates, and bumps schedules forward or backward due to late or early events. And also distributes income according to peoples' contributions along the flow paths. We will need to do the same for exchange-oriented flows, and then the fully detailed process-exchange-alternation flows.

Then we will start generalizing and see how much of this code could be refactored up to an abstract superclass, Economic Interaction Type.

This will all take a long time, at least the rest of this year, but the process-oriented flows work now, and we will need to to get the exchange-oriented flows working in the next month.

So if you are interested, reply here and we'll discuss.

[elf-pavlik]

How Exchange exactly differs from Process?

I think Process describes how some resources transform into other ones, by changing their physical attributes. While Exchanges can change physical location of a Resource but not really other attributes. Exchanges seem to focus on state of ownership / control / decision making over certain resources - social attributes. I guess just as we need many ways to model [Relationships between Agents](andle relationships between agents). We also need flexible and extensible model to model Relationships between Agents and Resources. Which in turn takes us again to #17 where I described Currency as a tools used to influence decisions of agents about some resources, tools for Negotiation aspect of all the Exchanges. I would very much like to see Loomio used for making decisions together about allocation of some particular resources (See also: https://github.com/hackers4peace/polyeconomy.info/wiki/Karma-Pass @ahdinosaur )

Possibly also relevant to this topic: http://www.open-contracting.org/

[bhaugen]

@elf-pavlik - agree with your distinctions between Processes and Exchanges.

Did you note that we separated Exchange into its own vocab repo?

This is because we are working with this Mutual Aid Network on vocabs and protocols for exchanges between different people in different networks using different software apps. Not sure where it will go, but we'll report as it does.

[ahdinosaur]

here's a random idea about economic interactions, what our subclasses were:

• transfer: a change in 'rights' relating to the resource(s)
• transport: a change in location of the resource(s)
• transform: a change in the composition of the resource(s)

[bhaugen]

To continue with that idea, in transfer and transport, it's the same resource going in and coming out of the interaction.

Transfer may be part of an exchange. Transport and transform are processes.

Transport usually requires some work and some transportation equipment.

In a transformation process, the input resource may or may not have the same identity as the output. Here's Wikipedia's list of manufacturing process types.

I think of casting, machining and molding as transformations (changing the form of an input resource), but usually the output of casting and molding has a different identity than the input, which is not always true of machining.

Odd that they don't have assembly listed as a process type. Seems to be a hidden subset of joining.

Also, to get a good. even beginning, list of process types, we'd need to add non-manufacturing processes: e.g. creative work, agriculture, etc etc.

[elf-pavlik]

all sounds good to me as long as we don't mix conceptual flows like Transfer & Exchange with physical flows (around processes)

once we get to monetary currencies, we will also need some dedicated terms for describing them also as conceptual flows...

[gcassel]

Transfer, transport and transform make a great deal of sense. I would agree that transform applies to cases where the output has the same basic identity-type as the input, although it would generally seem helpful to identify (preferably with metadata) at least one attribute which changes.

I think that creative work may be considered the addition of information to one or more resources-- or, in the case of digital media, the work may indeed be directly identified as information.

[bhaugen]

@gcassel

transform applies to cases where the output has the same basic identity-type as the input, although it would generally seem helpful to identify (preferably with metadata) at least one attribute which changes.

Casting and molding change the form (the literal meaning of transform) of the input, but the output usually has a different identity (e.g. molten metal vs a cast part).

But in general it is fairly easy to determine what changed when an input resource is the same as the output resource, by looking at the other inputs and the process type. For example, if you analyze repair (for example, the dodgy bike), it often consists of

• a diagnosis process (what's wrong and how to fix it),
• a disassembly process (removing bad parts), and
• a re-assembly process (attaching new parts).

So the same bike comes out, with some new parts.

I think there's a rich taxonomy of process types waiting to be be discovered. That Wikipedia article is just a starting point. We will probably need to start down that road as we analyze use cases.

I looked into schema.org a bit, and as usual, it's pretty eccentric. For example, https://schema.org/procedureType , which appears to apply only to https://schema.org/MedicalProcedure . https://schema.org/docs/actions.html seems related. It applies to https://schema.org/CreativeWork . Their http://schema.org/potentialAction smells like a Process Type.

[bhaugen]

One more thing about the process of Assembly: in general, the structure of the assembled output can be depicted from the input value flows of components. The components usually do not change their form or identity. So, for example, in a bicycle or car or computer, you can get replacement parts by part identifier. For example, go to the counter of the auto parts store and ask for a part by make, model and component. They will look it up in a catalog (used to be a book, more often now online) and get the part number, which should also tell them where to find it. (Depending on how organized they are...)

This is not true of a process of Transformation like molding or casting, but it may be true of machining or painting.

[bhaugen]

I'm trying to convey a general idea here that I may not yet be able to encapsulate in one sentence. It is that Process Types, like Resource Types, come in taxonomies. They are pregnant with children, who also have children. The richness of those taxonomies is the varieties of human creativity. And the more precisely we can understand the process type, the more we can understand the potential value flows going through it.

(I hope I am making some sense and not just confusing people...)

[gcassel]

I should have clarified before that I also perceive 'transform' to apply to cases where the basic/main 'identity-type' of a resource does change as a result of a process. This isn't as literally 'transform', but I think it can serve well. I doubt we'd want to add 'transmute' despite the fact that it's a super cool word, unless we decide to drum up some publicity by conflating ourselves with some kind of kooky alchemical cult. (Clarification: I do not personally know any such cults.)

[fosterlynn]

@gcassel Ha!

[gcassel]

You're making sense to me @bhaugen ,although I'm certainly capable of running further with a ball than someone else would want me to. For instance, I draw a lot of connections here with fractal organization in general. One example: something which is a project on one level of organization may be the parent community of another project. A specific process or task may develop within a given project or community. (BTW, I perceive task simply as a special case of process; does that make sense?) A task may develop its own community and, in complex cases, may evolve as a project unto itself. Etc.

At each level of organization of social objectives and processes, I think we should ultimately have a comprehensive bunch of communications and collaborative tools. I think in terms of fractal process (or task) management systems, which have the same toolset available at each level, even if custom tools also develop within a given level/ community/project. Regardless of which tools are available, of course, each process or task is likely to use different tools, different resources and workflows-- and, with (typically) complex processes, to spawn diverse children.

Or something like that. I too hope I'm making sense and not just confusing people.

[bhaugen]

One aspect of fractality we need to deal with some time is projects. We've seen two very different ideas of what a project is.

1. A project has a goal and a beginning and an end, and when it reaches its goal or has been declared a failure, it is done.
2. A project is an ongoing organization that has a focus and a team and it may go on for years. It has no definite end.

Sensorica has had both kinds of projects. Project type 2 will often have sub-projects. Project type 1, rarely.

[gcassel]

^ @bhaugen I see those two project types as analogous to the distinction I suggested above, regarding tasks as a special case of process. I.e. our objectives/intentions may involve one or more ongoing processes, one-time tasks, or tasks which recur either regularly or unpredictably, depending on circumstances. For instance, many of the tasks I deal with in online community management/administration are highly irregular, not unlike the tasks which emergency personnel perform.

This relates significantly to different types of community which I perceive. Communities may be associated with specific projects or tasks. They may also exist solely to share or discuss ideas regarding specific interests. (I.e., many discussion groups/forums and media-sharing groups.) Discussion and media sharing groups may have no 'beginning-end' objectives; they serve to create community and (hopefully) collective learning, which may engender various cooperative and/or collaborative processes and projects. Their governance and administration functions may require highly irregular effort, depending on the inputs of community members.

One of my trickiest conceptual points has been to clarify (to myself, at least) that intentional communities, including all discussion and media-sharing groups, ARE PROJECTS. They have objectives, which are described somewhere (though not always clearly or concisely.) However, they aren't necessarily governed or administrated in any formal way. Project management can be totally informal, but governance/administration/management tends to arise sooner or later due to conflicts of interest.

[almereyda]

We have moved the ValueFlows organization from GitHub to https://lab.allmende.io/valueflows.

This issue has been closed here, and all further discussion on this issue can be done at

https://lab.allmende.io/valueflows/forum-valueflo-ws/-/issues/15.

If you have not done so, you are very welcome to register at https://lab.allmende.io and join the ValueFlows organization there.