Compare OVN model, vocab and principles to EISPP

[bhaugen]

@bshambaugh - thanks for engaging. This is not an urgent request, but if you could start comparing EISPP to the current state of this openvocab/ovn effort, I think it would be interesting and useful. And possibly a better starting point for a conversation than the details of javascript notations, which will change.

Does EISPP have a model that you can depict in some fairly concise way, analogous to the diagrams in the readme here?

If so, how does it differ? What can we learn from it?

Can EISPP fulfill the principles as currently described in #12 ? Do you have any suggestions for improvement of those principles?

What are your goals for EISPP? How do you see it evolving? Where do you want it to go?

Please ignore any of this that does not make sense to you or is too difficult to do easily. I'm not trying to give you a lot of work, just start a productive conversation. Thanks.

[bshambaugh]

@xekoukou (see https://github.com/openvocab/ovn/issues/16) yes, I do see EISPP as complementary. It more or less seems like a formalization of what you're working on in the open apps ecosystem from what I can gather so far. There may be some differences, but I haven't gone through them yet. I think I describe it this way: " Introduction to a mockup in the form of a narrated animation that is a decentralized and distributed enterprise information system for peer production. This mockup provides the backbone that software modules can be built on to allow for creation of virtual teams that rely on minimal rekeying of the data and machine understanding. Linked data, semantic web technologies, and stigmergic collaboration are considered. This narrated animation provides an experience of what it would be like to use the software product. " I know I use the word enterprise...but I'm really talking about groups of people. They may exist or form an enterprise, they may not. I've seen talk about the legal status of this group. I also identify with this quote, "The inefficiency of automobiles' reciprocating engines - and their traffic-system-wasted fuel - and the energy inefficiency of today's buildings, are only two of hundreds of thousands of instances that can be cited of the design-avoidable energy wastage. But the technical raison d'etre for either the energy-effectiveness gains or losses is all completely invisible to human eyes. Thus, the significance of their omni-integratable potentialities is uncomprehended by either the world's leaders or the led. Neither the great political and financial power structures of the world, nor the specialization-blinded professionals, nor the population in general realize the sum-totally the omni-engineering-integratable, invisible revolution in metallurgical, chemical, and electronic arts now makes it possible to do so much more with ever fewer pounds and volumes of material, ergs of energy, and seconds of time per given technological function that it is now highly feasible to take care of everybody on Earth at a "higher standard of living than any have ever known.", pg. xxv, Critical Path, R. Buckminster Fuller

[bshambaugh]

Can EISPP fulfill the principles as currently described in #12 ? Do you have any suggestions for improvement of those principles?

I was rather rough with what I did in (https://github.com/openvocab/ovn/issues/12). I just read the REA paper and one paper about an REA ontology in UML and went from there. The reason I'm studying OVN in detail is to see where they differ.

[bshambaugh]

You can find it here for example (http://bshambaugh.org/eispp/ch_1_2_Ripple/PDF/list_ripplee.pdf) , (http://bshambaugh.org/eispp/ch_1_2_VRM/PDF/EISPP_directional_graph_2fresnel_gss_vrm2transact.pdf), (http://bshambaugh.org/eispp/ch_1_2_VRM/PDF/EISPP_directional_graph_2fresnel_gss_vrm2transact3.pdf) , (http://bshambaugh.org/eispp/ch_1_2_edit_triples/PDF/EISPP_directional_graph_2fresnel_gss_edit_anode8eadde.pdf) .

[bshambaugh]

Why did I choose a car? Why not a 3D Printer or a Mosquito? See this tutorial: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/simple-part-whole-relations-v1.3.html

[xekoukou]

@bshambaugh Unfortunately, your description of what you want to achieve is intermingled heavily with the technology that you will use. I had a similar problem when I read your paper, the one you shared at the ovninftrustructure group. This gives a big burden to the people that want to understand you. Do they have to read all those papers to understand what you say?

What I would like to hear is 3 things. a) What will this technology do? b) How effective is this technology for a)? c) How to work in parallel so that our work can be complemented.

For b) I won't look at the reasons it works or not. I will look whether the paper is from a reputable organization/university and I will look at the numbers. We need to have some metrics. Stigmergy and copotentiality need to be measured so as to be compared with previous values.

If b) doesn't exist, depending on the cost of conformance of my project to your model, you might not need to say anything, you might have to simplify the reasons it will work or you might have to push all the information to us in the way you do today.

It seems to me that the cost of comformance will be low and I am sure that simpler arguments would have won you more support.

Isn't it true that LOD allows for data discoverey and data traversal, machine analysis? Is this a good description of a)?

@fosterlynn has described how the mikorizal software has already some functionality on Resource types. In my opinion, @bshambaugh can also help us publish all our data into LOD so that they can be querried with the semantic web techniques he knows best.

Let me say one more thing. I am worried about the trustworthiness of data that are published all over the web. @bshambaugh You need to solve this problem. I have seen papers that deal with it.

[bhaugen]

@bshambaugh - Thanks for the explanations.

Your screenshots in those pdfs suggest that you are using or have assembled some running software. Is it available? Or did I misunderstand?

Since you are also looking at REA, here's an explanation of some of the differences between our current NRP software model and "Classical REA". We think some of those differences are necessary, some are changes that evolved from practice with living networks, and some are more like our preferences which other people could well disagree with. All are up for discussion.

[bshambaugh]

I'm not sure I'm totally done, but here is an ontology that I cooked up. I'll be working to clean it up and answer more of the questions above. https://github.com/bshambaugh/ovn-ontology/blob/master/ovn_ontology.owl

[bhaugen]

@bshambaugh - thanks. Yell when you are ready for comments and questions. I could have some now, but do you think it would be better to wait for your cleanup? Or would some questions now help your cleanup?

[fosterlynn]

@bshambaugh thanks, I'll study. Nice to have someone else who can put this stuff into a standard semantic web format. (I'm still a newbie, although I'm working on it.)

Question: Where are you picturing going with this? Should we be trying to sync up the ontology? If so, what do you think is the best way and the best timing?

[bshambaugh]

@bhaugen @fosterlynn I'm at a point where I can talk with you about it. In the readme file, I added the differences between the ovn model and my ovn ontology. I also have a diagram showing the classes and object property relationships. I have yet to create a diagram that also shows the data properties, but they are in the file ovn_ontology.owl. Any file beginning with agent_relationship is legacy and does not need to be studied.

In the EISPP diagrams, I used a simple REA model. I'll look at these diagrams again in context of what is developed here. I take it you are the experts here though.

EISPP is much broader than just the value networks. The rest of the wireframes could be seen as tools that work with them. What exists is most like a storyboard for a motion picture, with research to back it up. I exchanged a few e-mails, and have met briefly with Dave King from Exaptive. I hope to talk about ways it might be possible to move EISPP forward. (http://www.i2e.org/news/innovators-exaptive-inc/, https://exaptive.com/) . @xekoukou, sorry about the delay. I'll get with you soon.

[bhaugen]

@bshambaugh - where would you like to discuss your ovn ontology? Here? Or in your github repo issues? I can move this comment and followups over there if you prefer.

I will have a bunch of questions. The first one, which may settle several others, is your use of rdfs:subClassOf. What do you mean by it?

Secondary questions below are about definitions of terms, where it is not clear to me whether you mean the REA definition or something else. (For example, Event.)

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof says:

The property rdfs:subClassOf is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to state
that all the instances of one class are instances of another.

A triple of the form:

C1 rdfs:subClassOf C2
states that C1 is an instance of rdfs:Class, 
C2 is an instance of rdfs:Class and C1 is a subclass of C2.

In your ontology, you have:

:Commitment rdf:type owl:Class ;

            rdfs:subClassOf :Event 

How is a Commitment an instance of an Event? By Event, do you mean the REA primitive Economic Event? Or the more common use of Event, as something that happened? (Or maybe the other definition that is used a lot in social media, as something that is planned to happen that people could attend?)

Likewise, you have:

:InputType rdf:type owl:Class ;

           rdfs:subClassOf :Resource 

And in your diagram, it looks like you also have Plan as a subclass of Resource, although I don't see that in https://github.com/bshambaugh/ovn-ontology/blob/master/ovn_ontology.owl

How are you defining InputType, Plan and Resource?

[bhaugen]

@bshambaugh - p.s. I should have said what I liked.

I liked that you did your work in an actual LOD format (owl), while we are still handwaving in that direction, and that you did your homework in the REA source documents. And I also liked the class diagram. Was that generated from the owl by a tool?

[bshambaugh]

@bhaugen When I say something is a subclass I say that it shares all of the characteristics of the superclass. I did say Commitment was an REA Event since it can be performed by an agent and is acted upon by a resource. I saw InputType as a Resource that went together in a Recipe to produce an OutputType. Initially I thought Plan was a Resource as well, but then I thought it really wasn't some physical product (my definition of Resource). Be back soon. I have to go to work .

[bhaugen]

@bshambaugh - thanks for responding.

I think you are focusing on some similar attributes but ignoring the very different behaviors between a Commitment and an Economic Event. Between an InputType and a Resource the difference is more extreme: they are not even directly related.

A Commitment is a plan for an Economic Event that has not happened yet. It is not performed yet. It does not act on anything - yet. An Economic Event may (or may not) fulfill a Commitment. The Commitment might just pine away unfulfilled forever.

A Resource may be a physical product (goods) or not (services, designs, money, etc). An InputType is a relationship between a ResourceType (not a Resource) and a ProcessType, where the InputType specifies the ResourceType, quantity, and effect of an input of this Type (is the Resource of the ResourceType to be consumed, used, cited, or what?)

(In "classical" REA terms, an InputType is a subclass of CommitmentType. We recently proposed renaming CommitmentType to PlanType, and so InputType would be a subclass of PlanType, if that clarifies anything in terms of your REA source document studies.)

An InputType has no direct relationship to a Resource, only to ResourceTypes.

I think all of those distinctions are necessary to designing, planning and executing economic networks of any kind. See #12

You may disagree, and we can get deeper into this if you like. Some detailed examples might help.

[bshambaugh]

Thus a ResourceType is not a Resource but a type of resource like a house, 3dprinter, etc. Before we go further, what is process type?

[bhaugen]

Everything at the type level is about general definitions and policies.

So a process type is a definition of a process, not an actual process. For example, the herbal network that Lynn has been working with has process types called Harvest and Dry. The recipe for Dried Herbs says first you Harvest, then you Dry, and at the end you get Dried Herbs. An actual process of harvesting will harvest some actual herbs (for example, Chocolate Peppermint) from an actual field on an actual farm (for example, Mike's) at an actual time, performed by some actual people (for example, Johanna). The process type Harvest has none of that. It just says somebody (a work input type) will harvest some herbs and the output type will be harvested herbs. Then the Drying process type says its input type is harvested herbs, and its output type is dried herbs, and it uses a drying room (another input type).

Clear enough? (Took me a few tries to get that right. Maybe @fosterlynn can tell me if I succeeded?)

[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/2.

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