Do we have the same idea of what an Open App Ecosystem is?
Bob Haugen
Public
Seen by 391
I see two or maybe three different ideas floating around:
1. Collect a bunch of existing open-source software and add a single-signon app and maybe a dashboard and some navigation. This is good and useful. Sorta what DigLife is doing (but see also #2).
2. The next stage is what DigLife adds to their collection of apps. Notably, in what I saw, a bot that does some integration of the apps into somewhat more of an ecosystem, and possibly some data-sharing among the separate apps.
3. Yet another stage is radical decentralization, which will require creating some new apps, because what is needed may not exist.
I think Holochain is an example of this, which they describe as agent-centric instead of data-centric, as is the proposal that @lynnfoster recently posted called Structuring the OAE around agents. This is also similar to the Indie Web, Solid, and SSB. In all of those visions, you own your own data and your own identity and you may interact with other agents, some of which may be individuals and some of which may be groups that you voluntarily participate in. Agents in this stage could also use different existing apps, but their main interactions would be with other agents, not with other apps.
I don't think any of those directions are bad. But they are different.
Which of those visions are you working toward? Or are you working toward something else? Or do you think I mis-stated the question?
Bob Haugen Thu 21 Dec 2017 1:04PM
It's more like what is the role of humans economically. If they are resources, themselves, they have no agency. Economically, they provide resources (as agents): all of that knowledge, competence, and specific services. Those are all resources. But you need to get the agreement of the human agent about providing them for your purposes.
I don't know if I can make that clear without your trying it in code. I'll try to think of a use case or two where I can find the code to illustrate the difference in a way that would make sense to people.
Bob Haugen Thu 21 Dec 2017 1:16PM
Maybe this will make it more clear:
https://speakerdeck.com/mikorizal/nrp-round-trip
That was a real use case in Sensorica. People as agents provided the resources money and work. The money bought the resources 3d printer and resins. The work created the design resource and operated the 3d printer.
When the part was sold, the money was distributed back to the people as agents based on the resources they contributed to the production of the part. That's all based on distinguishing the people as agents from the resources they provided.
I could walk people through the code for all that, but it would take a lot longer than looking at the slides.
Tibor Katelbach Thu 21 Dec 2017 5:58PM
ok, I understand it in the exchange and production point of view. But when describing a place , a project, an organisation..., how would you call human ressources ?
Bob Haugen Thu 21 Dec 2017 6:10PM
I don't use the term "human resources" at all. I would say which people are at a place, or working on a project, or are associated with an organization, and what skills do they have (if I want to know that), and maybe what roles do they play.
[edit] ValueFlows can express all of that, although I am not sure how much is formally agreed upon yet. Our NRP software, and REA, can express all of it.
Tibor Katelbach · Thu 21 Dec 2017 6:33AM
I don't really see the link connecting the concepts of ressources, humans as slaves. Why qualify this ressource specificaly ?
isn't Human ressources a good way to present that they are essencial ressources in the development of any organization, project , event ...?
They are even more a ressource when connected to knowledge, competence or a specific service they might propose.
I'd say , within any type of element (organiization, project, event ...) Anything that enriches , helps develop or serves as a tool can be concidered as ressource ?