Permissive Commons
I have found that i've had challenges trying to figure out how to best structure the documentation for PermissiveCommonsTech ("PCT") primarily because, there are many complex considerations that need to be illustrated both in-terms of the applied use of the technology as an instrumental sub-system for the [[SocialFactors/CommercialModels/Webizen]] Tech-Stack; whilst also considerate of the desirable implication and/or outcome, that these systems may well be used independently to other Webizen Technology related Ecosystems. In-turn there are various considerations related to the notes broadly made via the SocialFactors folder; but also, and in-particular therein, various deliberations related to WebScience methodologies. There are many, many technical factors involved, yet the purpose of these considerations are fundamentally social, or moreover related to the useful purpose of BiosphereOntologies and in-turn SocioSphereOntologies being empowered to deliver useful insights that show how the consequential EnergyCalcs and ESG metrics (inc. SDGs ) perform much better via these systems, than alternatives; and in circumstances where that is not the case, offer the information needed to address it.
The foundational notions of Permissive Commons were born due to the design requirements considered - now many years ago - in relation to the management of Ontologies, which thereby brought about the notion of DecentralisedOntologies however the applied employment of these components becomes a critical service to all other parts.
Beyond OntologyModelling, the scope of 'hyper-media' assets is broader than simply any RDF based assets, and the two are interoperable.
The Permissive Commons concept is like an advancement of 'open-data' (see: WhatIsOpenData), whilst adding more functionality as a consequence of the ability to use permission structures in relation to assets.
Permissive Commons related documents;
There are a few different 'usecases' relating to the use of 'permissive commons'. The applied definition of 'commons' is also described by WhatAreTheCommons.
The sub-folders and notes are strongly related to the work to produce an implementation of the webizen ecosystem, which is moreover the intended purpose of this documentation.
The Public Commons The first is what would generally be considered 'open data' or information / artifacts of knowledge that pertain to and/or are counterparts to the essential knowledge artifacts required to support human rights.
The historical context of what these sorts of assets 'look like'; include but are not limited to,
- Languages
- Encylopedias (knowledge about our biosphere)
- Liberal Arts related artifacts
- STEM related artifacts (including but not exclusive to statistics)
- Laws
- Works that are no-longer protected by Copyright Rights (public domain works)
The nature of how these assets are made available online has changed the 'media format' of the content in various ways. This in-turn produces an array of new 'functionality' or artifact constituencies that did not exist in previous media (plural of medium) formats, as is illustrated in various types of formats both online and in physical and/or inter-personally communicated formats. Historically, there has generally been a publisher of whatever the artifacts are; although, the fuller body of knowledge about that particular topic or thing, may have artifacts create / published by many entities.
More recently, an incredibly significant dependence has developed upon the use of a few websites only to make available 'commons' information.
In almost all circumstances, the abillity to add more information about something to 'commons' resources - requires some sort of permission or indeed also, attribution - even if only to protect from the potential implications of wrong-doers...
In other circumstances, its quite important that there is a valid 'authority' associated to the publication of some kind of commons resource; an example could be the legislative information about a particular law made by a government / parliament in some particular juristiction; where the ability to read is made public, and the application of the 'law' is intended to be defined upon all people; but that the creation of that law, requires a particular process involving specified persons.
In other situations; for example, the development of a software project using 'github' or similar; or the collaborative development of a document or spreadsheet using an application like 'google docs', the permission structures may be different; indeed, it may be restricted to a particular group or components may be restricted to a particular group (ie: the development of a new version). SO, whilst these sorts of examples are still 'commons' between those people involved; it is also 'permissioned' in a particular sort of way. This then brings about a consideration about how new systems may in-turn offer solutions for problems that haven't been able to be addressed earlier; such as,
The abilty to associate compensation to 'knowledge' works, whether that be via a licensing model that applies the same costs equally to all types of 'consumers' or whether it differentiates between different types of consumers, based on particular characteristics, etc.
The ability to track a process of compensating a person for useful works in a way, that can support the ability to employ 'micropayments' via some sort of defined model; to provide fair compensation for work that a person has done, as is defined electronically; and then, once that fair-compensation amount has been renumerated, the license / permissions are changed. The point being, that people who do work for the good of humanity should be paid fairly for their useful contributions; but that also, they should not be paid in perpetuity as to seek rents, in a way that would harm the ability to support 'freedom of thought'.
Technical Description
Permissive commons uses a variety of different DLT (Decentralised Ledger Technologies) protocols, noting different protocols better suit different types of applications / use-cases.
Each 'entity' has its own 'graph' (pointed graph); whereby elements of that graph can be downloaded to parse the machine-readable format of the data-structures for use by the local agent (or a linked agent within a users personal or 'trusted' network).
Concept or Entity Centric "Containers"
An example is to describe a particular type of Plant; i'll pick a Melaleuca. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melaleuca
Therein - the 'permissive commons' container(s) for that 'thing' would include all sorts of information that describes all the different bits and pieces of information known about a mellaleuca; including, both microscopic & macroscopic information; and the ability to store 'identification' information for use by a AI processor (ie: to identify any melaleuca in photos, etc.).
This then employs the ontological structures to support AI processing for the information about whatever the topic is; and, users are then able to produce new content, that references via URIs the concepts that they're communicating in a manner that is linked to the graph about that particular topic, concept or thing.
The storage of information about each 'concept' is intended to support provonance, and any alterations provide links to previous versions; alongside an ability to form semantic inferencing notations about any meaningful relations between the concepts / topics noted earlier as may be effected by updates.
TemporalSemantics For example; is a news-article was written about a particular topic in reliance of a particular 'fact' that was believed to be 'true' at the time; but later, new information shows that the old assumption was in-fact incorrect. The permissive commons engine would support the ability to contextualise the information both from a perspective of when that article or piece of content was written; and, as the manifest underlying assumptions or representations - whether it be about the circumstances of that time, or any changes that have happened since - can in-turn be contextualised for observers (users), temporallly.
The verifiable claims element, has various applications / implications; including, the ability to support provonance in relation to who did what; and in-turn, any terms that may relate to those contributions.
**### About
The concept of permissive commons is predicated upon the concept of advancing semantic web technologies that have a capacity to provide peace infrastructure of international significance.
The Semantic Web is a collection of techniques and/or technologies that provide a standardised method for producing systems and services that are able to be built to support a world that is predicated upon a presumption of responsibility, opportunity and acknowledgement of members of our human family in relation to the causal relationship between what people do and the impact that has upon other members of our human family.
Purpose
Whilst we have historically produced other forms of knowledge (and information) infrastructure to support means for members of our human family to support & be supported by one another to grow and prosper with a shared commitment to peace, law (or lore) and various other socioeconomic requirements; the mainstream method that has become increasingly important has been the development of ‘internet communications technology infrastructure’ as a primary form of media for verifiable communications.
The development and widespread deployment of these tools and related apparatus has resulted in changes of great significance that impact all life on earth. These changes presently display various characteristics where the performance achieved through the use of modern technology far exceeds what was possible without it, however this is not universally the case. There are various other characteristics of our societies prior to the growth of these new mediums (collectively - media) that have not prospered. In some cases, there are aspects to societies that were highly valued that have been consumed, exploited and allowed to deteriorate in ways that are known to be supportive for some, whilst a cause of harm for others. The characteristics of beneficiaries and those who have been consumed, is many, it is broad.
There are concepts such as ‘truth telling’ that have been dispensed with, to support beneficiaries that have preferred to ensure that is not amongst the features most valued by the things they have made.
There are societal values, like human rights concepts that have been largely dispensed with, benefiting some who are of a particular character that best supports means to care-less-ly seek revenue, profits.
There are social resources, like language - that have too often been intentionally misused & abused via systems that seek to apply ‘projections’ upon the many, whilst maintaining systems of control via a small group of artificial actors. These artificial actors (legal entities / companies) were historically operated by human beings as incorporated persons (as it is called in the USA & similar) did not have facility to employ active - artificial agents, which has been considered a problem & solutions are emerging for it.
These works are fundamentally supported as a consequence of the mindsphere of natural persons, of members of our human family, whose incentives frameworks as have been acted upon, demonstrably illustrate a series of ideologies that are able to be characterised - at least, theoretically if not practically.
Throughout human history, there has always been an acknowledged requirement to support different groups of people who are able to be distinguished by a common set of values illustrated by those groups; and to seek to ensure that there is a capacity for different groups of people, to hold different ‘values frameworks’; who are in-turn sought to be supported as to peacefully interact with one another without requiring a common agreement that would invalidate people of a particular group, rather, that the focus has been on seeking to ensure means to distinguish between persons who act in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of peaceful relations, from those whose behaviours are not peaceful or reasonably directed / acted / engaged with - on a basis that is equipped to supply peaceful outcomes, morally. Therein, is a situation where the concept of ‘moral’ or ‘morality’ becomes invoked; as does in-turn also, relate to the concepts historically illustrated via tamper-evidence means called law.
Whilst there is an array of infrastructure that has developed over time to support societal requirements; as is in the interests of all members of our human family, many of these infrastructure requirements are not reasonably supported via these new mediums. Regardless of whether or not it's distasteful, they’re designs that have developed as a consequence of what has been defined to be important by its designers.
It is my belief that there is now an opportunity to better define an alternative modality that can support members of the human family who are seeking an alternative knowledge technology infrastructure solution, a solution that those members may consider to be better equipped to support their means to live, grow and prosper in an environment where part of their time is spent both using and improving peace infrastructure projects; that meaningfully benefit the lives of others, done in association to values that cannot be easily illustrated via the infrastructure provided by the leaders of platforms as defined today.
Lawful Rights to; seek to ensure,
- Safety & infrastructure to support ones ability to protect life & rights.
- The timely arbitration of Justice in courts of law.
- The desire to ensure our economic system protects the right for proper compensation to be provided to a person who has acted lawfully whilst subjected to wrongs by actors whose behaviours should be able to be determined in a court of law by judge and/or jury of ones peers.
- That behaviour is illustrative of knowingly seeking to engage in harm or to undermine law; not warrant greater benefit and/or impunity for reasons that seek by financed acts, lawful impunity.
- Those wrongs committed via artificial beings, whether active (ie: software / AI) or by sophisticated legal and/or financial means - regardless of how few or how many are disaffected; are sought to be associated with the natural persons who were fundamentally involved in executing such wrongs. That our society is not defined in a manner that seeks to discourage / mute, concepts such as law.
Whilst my words may be inelegant and/or of a draft nature that could always be improved with more work; the underlying reality becomes, that there are already many very good instruments that exist, and whilst they’re not able to be made employable usefully enough online or socio-economically in our world; there is a capacity to employ the tools made by people of different values, to produce tools that are able to provide different sorts of ‘user experiences’. It is thereafter considered important to note, that an array of nomenclature does indeed need to be defined, or specifically re:defined should ‘words’ have become commonly used for purposes / meaning, that are considered different to the science or purpose of any such words at a time of origin.**
#Privacy #socialfabric #ValuesFrameworks #SafetyProtocols