Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] (SMVcon) Developers cooperating withAG Meinungsfindungstool

[Alexander Praetorius <citizen AT serapath.de>]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM, marc <marc AT merkstduwas.de> wrote:

Hi Michael,

You wrote:

Frauke and Alex,
Frauke said:

The first question must be: in which case is it necessary to bring
different tools together and why?
If you can answer this question, we can go on.

We answered this already.  Cooperation is necessary in order to level
the playing field among platforms, prevent the formation of a de-facto
monopoly, and thus maintain the user's freedom of choice.  (See also
the German translation below.)

Yes, most of AG MFT are on this track, therefore our work is mainly towards cooperation!

But I am currently more describing the position of the "Prototype Core Team" (PCT), that is part of the working group AG MFT.

Alex said:

I'm ALL IN on (1), and I think that's what the "Ontology" is all
about. Its a way to map one plattform onto another, ... where
plattform is called a plugin when it comes to AG
Meinungsfindungstool.  But as mentioned in discussions way earlier,
these plugins do not necessarily plug into something, but instead
into each other, ...which means a plugin is just a plattform that
uses ontologies for "Vote mirroring" :-)

That is also my understanding.

The PCT don't want to encourage one special implementation. Instead we want to enable all participating implementations to collaborate. Indeed this needs an agreement on a common understanding of "something".

I would like to refer to this little "something" as the Common Discussion Standard (CDS). We want to describe the CDS with the help of an Ontologie to picture the "data" part and a Web API to cover the possible "workflows".

Finally the CDS is what enables plug-ins to plug into each other.

[alex]
Sounds great.
It would also be cool to have a very detailed prototype as a proof of concept implementation.
A tool that people could actually use and other programmers could look at the source in order to understand how to implement the CDS
[/alex]

 

Yes, it could be.  Let's see if the AGM engineers agree about (1) in
regard to all platforms, including non-AGM platforms such as Votorola.
Unfortunately they're confronted with a language barrier owing to my
lack of German.  Here's a Google translation:
[snipped]
I hope that makes sense.  If not, please correct the translation
errors.  Here's the original English:

It's often difficult for competitors to understand each other. But we
must be clear on this issue. A platform cannot succeed without users.
There are two ways to obtain those users:
(1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus levelling
the playing field and enabling the users to range freely from
platform to platform.

That's what I think we would like to achieve. Even if there is no chance to eleminate the networking effects between individuals, the PCT focus more on the interchangeability of individual implementations.

This is the right way.

To be honest, I don't know if this is the right way. But it's the only one I am aware of right now ;o)

Let's wait for the answer, as cooperation necessarily depends on it.

I think most of the members of our working group AG MFT are towards (1).

At least the Prototype Core Team fully agrees. So far our solution is not to build yet another discussion/voting/collaboration/networking tool, but to define an environment where tools can plug in and share data and extend workflows. The working title for this is "d!sco" (Discussion Ontology) Framework.

The PCT don't care much about distinct methodologies of discussion/voting/collaboration/networking as far as they don't influence or concern the overall process of decision-making. The idea is to achieve an agreement between all participants on the Common Discussion Standard. This standard consists of an ontology and a web api to enable communication between all implementations.


Our goal is to enable cooperation by defining a standard. This is how the internet succeeds. Defining a standard that everyone can implement to gain benefit from it. The main benefit of CDS is to obtain users and to preserve data.


Does this make sense?

Cheers
Marc
_______________________________________________
Votorola mailing list
Votorola AT zelea.com
http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola

--

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

***********************************************

Alexander Praetorius

Rappstraße 13

D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main

Germany

[skype] alexander.praetorius

[mail] citizen AT serapath.de

[web] http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath 

***********************************************