(SMVcon) Developers cooperating with AG Meinungsfindungstool

[Michael Allan]

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.)


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" :-)

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:

   Wir müssen in dieser Frage klar.  Eine Plattform kann nicht ohne
   Erfolg Benutzer.  Es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten, um die Benutzer zu
   erhalten:

     (1) Beseitigen Sie die Netzwerk-Effekte zwischen den Plattformen,
         so Einebnung des Spielfeldes und ermöglicht den Benutzern,
         reichen frei von Plattform zu Plattform.

         Dies ist der richtige Weg.

     (2) auf Netzwerk-Effekte Vertrauen, um alle Benutzer auf die
         eigene Kraft Plattform und schafft so als einer
         de-facto-Monopol.

         Dies ist schädlich und unnötig und daher fehlerhaft.

   Dies sind die einzigen Möglichkeiten. Es gibt keine Grauzonen
   dazwischen.  wenn Unsere Wahl ist nicht (1), dann ist es (2), und
   kein verantwortlicher Ingenieur wird mit uns zusammenzuarbeiten.
   Stattdessen wird er auf die Gefahr hinweisen und warnen uns nicht
   weiter zu verfolgen.

   (1) oder (2)?  Was sollen wir tun?

I hope that makes sense.  If not, please correct the translation
errors.  Here's the original English:

   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
         leveling the playing field and enabling the users to range
         freely from platform to platform.

         This is the right way.

     (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own
         platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.

         This is harmful and unnecessary, and therefore wrong.

   These are the only ways.  There are no grey areas in between.  If
   our choice is not (1), then it is (2), and no responsible engineer
   will cooperate with us.  Instead he'll point to the danger and warn
   us not to proceed.

   (1) or (2)?  What should we do?

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

Mike


Frauke Mattfeldt said:
> I think all these things are just bla bla as long as there is no common 
> concept and no framework, which means: no common vision (theoretically) 
> and regarding the technical side: no framework or ontology which mirrors 
> this vision.
> All the stuff here is just bla bla.
> 
> Most of the tools which are currently developed are more or less focused 
> on specialized fields of application.
> This is ok. But if so, there is no need to bring them all together.
> 
> 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.
> 
> If you want to have different tools which fit into one framework / 
> ontology, you need to develope the ontology first. Afterwards you can 
> develope different tools which adapt to that framework.
> 
> But:
> For me it seems to be more dangerous to have one big database with an 
> API and many tools which are connected to this centralized database, 
> than to have one (open source) tool which can be run on different 
> servers with many databases and exchange the data between the different 
> servers via an API on every of these servers.
> 
> If you once have this kind of network, it would be possible as well to 
> create different tools -> they just need a suitable API in this case.
> 
> Anyhow, the framework is the first thing which has to be developed. As 
> long as the framework is not there, you can just try to merge different 
> tools regarding their functionalities if they complement one another.


Alexander Praetorius 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" :-)