Living Ontology Web

The Living Ontology Web is what is often called an upper ontology for what is often called a semantic web. It supports various kinds of semantic links that are defined in living ontology, e.g. the refer link, the cite link, header tags and footer tags.

a sociosemantic web

In Chapter 6 of his book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596007655 Ambient Findability - What We Find Changes Who We Become, Peter Morville defines a sociosemantic web as relying on "the pace-layering of ontologies, taxonomies, and folksonomies to learn and adapt as well as teach and remember." Though his assumptions lead him to conclude that such efforts are necessarily global, LOW takes the position that a findability problem is specialized by faction, jurisdiction, point of view and other factors. General sociosemantic standards can develop over time starting from a relatively loose core.

The core ontology is a minimal or weak web ontology required to support wiki as the way web service open content is developed. Many of the link types assume a share-alike form of reciprocity and a troll-friendly disregard for names in favour of advocacy group or faction credentials. This is deliberate: models of the LOW are based on corporatism and the assumption that a struggle takes place between interest groups to define the ultimate consensus.


LOW also is an active ontology, so users prefer verb form to name articles which are assumed to be instructional capital by default. This is its major difference from the GFDL corpus namespace.

not OWL

LOW is deliberately not compatible with OWL: Problems that require judgement or controversy on terms of reference require a deep framing that is far more respectful of term variations than any such strong web ontology.

All human command verbs for instance have a range of meaning and imply so much trust that it is not possible to reason about them in any automated way.


So for these problems in politics itself, the alternative weak ontology approaches such as RESTful protocols are preferred by the Efficient Civics Guild. One obvious rationale is that due to the difficulty of teaching OWL to an entire class of folks, only a few people can ever participate in the definition of the core ontology. Whereas by employing a limited subset of natural language, there is at least the chance of input from untrained individuals with serious insights.


In http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591840880 The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture, by John Battelle he notes the influence of google: "a change in how the search engine works can drive business to some on line retailers while destroying the business of others. It can conceivably literally create trends, and promote views, all through the seemingly blind eye of the program. The problem is that these programs are anything but blind, and we are on the verge of tremendous legal battles due to the creativity of those trying to use the system to deflect traffic from the owner of a trademark, to their own competing brand, with full compliance by the folks at Google." This is not very democratic, and to create new rival search engines will inevitably have the same problems without knitting consensus decision making and related methods into web services that enhance findability of the corpus.

The living ontology itself provides a model of deep democracy which can describe a parametrized search engine, e.g. for the open politics web only, or for factions within it. The priorities and promotions and deflections and redirections can then at least in theory be set by a process that can be changed by some means, including votes. A judiciary function may still be required, however.

LOWest Troll

The most trusted arbiter of the LOW is usually called the LOWest Troll. In some usages there is no capitalization to conserve capitals for use elsewhere. It is central to the LOW ontological approach that this person or entity have:

A fixed officer protocol by which to unseat the LOWest for lacking a New Troll point of view is an advisable approach, but is not specified as a requirement of the Living Ontology Web itself. This is left up to subsets like open politics web or openpolitics.ca itself. The ruleset open politics in force provides some guidelines.