[Ag Meinungsfindungstool] (SMVcon) Developers cooperating withAG Meinungsfindungstool

[Alexander Praetorius]

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<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 <alexander.praetorius at serapath.de>
*[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
***********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/attachments/20130306/6da4b70d/attachment.html>