Structuring aspects
Associative links in the words of structuring, ordering, systematization, classification, clustering lead, firstly, to the area related to content, concepts, knowledge, etc. The very understanding contains this aspect of structuring - we understand the subject, if “spread it out shelves ”, established the necessary links and relationships. In a sense, this is a “spatial” activity, because occurs in a certain space, be it two-dimensional on paper, where nodes-objects-concepts and connections between them are drawn, abstract mathematical from graph theory, or everything happens in the human head, in the “space of thinking”. The second direction is “organizational”, it is more related to the coordination and regulation of various related processes and is associated with time and dynamics. For example, coordination of human activity in society. Or the sequence of operations in a computer processor. In this sense, programming (at least the most common of its paradigms) is “temporary” structuring. From this point of view, almost any human activity relates to space-time structuring.
Such an abstract formulation requires a corresponding level of abstractness of the subject of structuring, and resources are suitable for this role. Resources in a broad sense, including close to the use of this word in the abbreviation RDF (Resource Description Framework) from the subject of the Semantic Web. For example, people are (or possess) resources - intellectual, creative, organizational. Health and beauty in certain relationships can be considered resources. People also operate with information, financial and other resources. Different projects and services solve nothing more than the task of structuring, they group / cluster / form various kinds of resources and create relationships between them. For example, they form a certain (target) audience and a certain content (information resource) that satisfies the needs of this audience. In a Web 2.0 approach, this is usually a mutually stimulating process — specific content attracts a specific audience that generates relevant content. Another example: in distributed computing, computational resources are grouped and associated with a target group of consumers. Services like Zopa involve users ’financial resources.
In this approach, the society is considered as an organized resource environment in which the temporal and spatial aspects of structuring interact with each other. Greater “spatial” ordering usually means more opportunities for temporal ordering, i.e. organization of processes and ultimately their intensification. For example, the concept of object-oriented programming actually means a link between "temporary" structuring and orientation to objects, i.e. on their "spatial" structure. What it gave is known - the intensification of programming in terms of the possibilities of its application to more complex things. From the same area comes the well-known assertion that it is easier and more accurate (read more quickly) to organize a search in ordered content. As we see from the general statement, not only the search, in general, anything is easier to organize.
')
The Internet reflects the traditional society, although in this reflection some aspects are weakened and others are strengthened. Socium is people, among all resources people form a special subset on the basis of activity / passivity in the sense that they generate or use everything else. Curious in this regard, the evolution of the Internet. Web 1 - the majority of users are passive consumers of content structured by expert experts for them. Or in the broader sense indicated above, consumers of services, which are also an aspect of resource structuring. Web 2.0 - the involvement of the bulk in the production of content (but not services, since startups are still the lot of a small, most active and enterprising part of users). The movement from the first web to the second is natural, since involved the inherent activity of people, but it also revealed another problem - the quality of the aggregate content decreased and the problem of its structural organization became even more acute. Naturally, therefore, talk about Web 3.0 somehow relates to greater organization of the network. On the one hand, these conversations take into account the human aspect, they are about the “expert” web, which will somehow combine mass activity with expert filtering. Of course, the question is exactly how to combine. Some experience has been gained here regarding the relationship of the nature of a particular community with the nature of the rating system in it (in the discussion for his post on the Inventure blog, Phil Smirnov pointed out some links to this topic), as well as on delegation of authority, empowerment . It is interesting that in RuNet (judging by the article on Wikipedia ), those who have experience in building such communities in the network speak about the expert web. In fact, a traditional society has been practicing such things for thousands of years. Apparently, this experience is not very easily transferred to the Internet. Perhaps because in “real” people with such experience are usually politicians, businessmen, organizers, and far from all of them devote themselves to the Internet, or do not find suitable formats in it.
On the other hand, the “machine-oriented” part of the ideology of Web 3.0 is also mainly related to the greater structure of the network ( semantic web , semantic (typed) links , linked data , etc.). High attention towards cars is certainly justified, since cars can do much, often incomparably more people. However, not in all areas. In terms of higher creative abilities, they most likely will never surpass people. This means a strategic division of functions, in which a person remains an active yang center, and machines play a strong but passive yin-role. It seems, however, that this is not a reason for chauvinism, since The behavioral patterns of most people are not as complex as we would like to think about ourselves, representing the infinity and uniqueness of our inner world. As a result, we have predictable reactions, so that in the foreseeable future, an average person in the network can be modeled well with artificial intelligence (in project iii, it is already proposed to use info instead of the people who generated them).
Nevertheless, it seems that the machine part of the ideology of the future network is developed more and more in detail than the human part. And besides, they are not considered in interaction with each other. I position this note as an introduction to the problematic, convenient for presenting my vision of these things in the next text. More precisely, its addition to the existing one.
Such an abstract formulation requires a corresponding level of abstractness of the subject of structuring, and resources are suitable for this role. Resources in a broad sense, including close to the use of this word in the abbreviation RDF (Resource Description Framework) from the subject of the Semantic Web. For example, people are (or possess) resources - intellectual, creative, organizational. Health and beauty in certain relationships can be considered resources. People also operate with information, financial and other resources. Different projects and services solve nothing more than the task of structuring, they group / cluster / form various kinds of resources and create relationships between them. For example, they form a certain (target) audience and a certain content (information resource) that satisfies the needs of this audience. In a Web 2.0 approach, this is usually a mutually stimulating process — specific content attracts a specific audience that generates relevant content. Another example: in distributed computing, computational resources are grouped and associated with a target group of consumers. Services like Zopa involve users ’financial resources.
In this approach, the society is considered as an organized resource environment in which the temporal and spatial aspects of structuring interact with each other. Greater “spatial” ordering usually means more opportunities for temporal ordering, i.e. organization of processes and ultimately their intensification. For example, the concept of object-oriented programming actually means a link between "temporary" structuring and orientation to objects, i.e. on their "spatial" structure. What it gave is known - the intensification of programming in terms of the possibilities of its application to more complex things. From the same area comes the well-known assertion that it is easier and more accurate (read more quickly) to organize a search in ordered content. As we see from the general statement, not only the search, in general, anything is easier to organize.
')
The Internet reflects the traditional society, although in this reflection some aspects are weakened and others are strengthened. Socium is people, among all resources people form a special subset on the basis of activity / passivity in the sense that they generate or use everything else. Curious in this regard, the evolution of the Internet. Web 1 - the majority of users are passive consumers of content structured by expert experts for them. Or in the broader sense indicated above, consumers of services, which are also an aspect of resource structuring. Web 2.0 - the involvement of the bulk in the production of content (but not services, since startups are still the lot of a small, most active and enterprising part of users). The movement from the first web to the second is natural, since involved the inherent activity of people, but it also revealed another problem - the quality of the aggregate content decreased and the problem of its structural organization became even more acute. Naturally, therefore, talk about Web 3.0 somehow relates to greater organization of the network. On the one hand, these conversations take into account the human aspect, they are about the “expert” web, which will somehow combine mass activity with expert filtering. Of course, the question is exactly how to combine. Some experience has been gained here regarding the relationship of the nature of a particular community with the nature of the rating system in it (in the discussion for his post on the Inventure blog, Phil Smirnov pointed out some links to this topic), as well as on delegation of authority, empowerment . It is interesting that in RuNet (judging by the article on Wikipedia ), those who have experience in building such communities in the network speak about the expert web. In fact, a traditional society has been practicing such things for thousands of years. Apparently, this experience is not very easily transferred to the Internet. Perhaps because in “real” people with such experience are usually politicians, businessmen, organizers, and far from all of them devote themselves to the Internet, or do not find suitable formats in it.
On the other hand, the “machine-oriented” part of the ideology of Web 3.0 is also mainly related to the greater structure of the network ( semantic web , semantic (typed) links , linked data , etc.). High attention towards cars is certainly justified, since cars can do much, often incomparably more people. However, not in all areas. In terms of higher creative abilities, they most likely will never surpass people. This means a strategic division of functions, in which a person remains an active yang center, and machines play a strong but passive yin-role. It seems, however, that this is not a reason for chauvinism, since The behavioral patterns of most people are not as complex as we would like to think about ourselves, representing the infinity and uniqueness of our inner world. As a result, we have predictable reactions, so that in the foreseeable future, an average person in the network can be modeled well with artificial intelligence (in project iii, it is already proposed to use info instead of the people who generated them).
Nevertheless, it seems that the machine part of the ideology of the future network is developed more and more in detail than the human part. And besides, they are not considered in interaction with each other. I position this note as an introduction to the problematic, convenient for presenting my vision of these things in the next text. More precisely, its addition to the existing one.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/80208/
All Articles