Comments:


Spaceweaver     Wed, Aug 5, 2009  Permanent link
Emotional ontology - Sounds like a very interesting concept. Can you describe more how you plan to go about this?
Technoshaman     Thu, Aug 13, 2009  Permanent link
I love your 5 facets of emographers, and the whole creative spirit and use of language, which shines thru!
notthisbody     Tue, Sep 15, 2009  Permanent link
@Spaceweaver

Sorry it took me awhile to answer your question but its a tough question. This is my attempt at an answer.

I think what we have to do is work from apparent & surface or seemingly superficial ontologies to see if we can lift off some layers that allow ourselves to access and understand our own unique & personal emotional ontologies more clearly. We can't close the gap between the emotional and rational by reason alone - neither by emotion :) - BUT by exposing the dichotomy or similarity between the two types of reactions we can perhaps enable a deeper insight into innate noetic understanding. It's calling into question what people think they feel and what people feel they think.

We can even stop talking necessarily about emotional ontologies, for that's out of reach for the most part at the moment, except on a limited scale (keeping in mind that scale is also expanding with technology). What we can concentrate on are subjective ontologies, the goals of their development being:

- the ability to use a more comprehensive language (physical, lingual, textual, sensual, etc.) to share our subjective experience with others.
- to allow people to build their own personal subjective ontology and draw meaning & context from the differences & similarities those ontologies have compared with others'
- to be able to choose our semantic agent's interaction paradigm (Zoacodes)

I see this is as really paramount in why we need the creation of subjective ontologies - to choose as well as identify dynamics of network ethics during online interaction.

At the moment all of our subjective ontologies are makeshift folksonomies & taxonomies. They shouldn't be discarded in the move to the semantic web. We want them to make the transfer because there's so much value and information in them that we don't want to lose. Encouraging the creation and use of folksontologies is the only way we're going to start to be able to map out subjective ontologies. After this, we can link those different subjective ontologies towards creating a flexible meta-folksontology. To do this requires a framework for the creation of folksontologies.


So - getting down to where we're at now - what we need is:

1. facilitation and streamlining of the creation of Folksontologies (THIS IS KEY!)
something just found to this effect: OntoGame - Games for Semantic Content Creation (check out OntoTube! and then imagine what can be done with more subjective ontologies!) by one of the writers
FolksOntology: An Integrated Approach for Turning Folksonomies into Ontologies (PDF)

2. aggregation of subjective ontologies & folksontologies - the subjective complement to the Linked Data Movement

The Emographic Census is less about trying to quantify emotion but rather the journey of exploring everything around it (at least at this point - with this technology - that will change soon, especially once mirror-neurons start being exploited in earnest.

Do you have any ideas regarding emotional ontology creation? This is what I got so far. I know it's also limited in relation to new models of mind but the complexity and diversity of these ontologies has no growth limit. The difficult part of it is trying to imagine how it can start to be implemented now. I'm leaning towards folksontologies as our best bet.
LED     Thu, Oct 8, 2009  Permanent link
I know your Emographic project is pretty much consistent, but I’ve been noticed that on Facebook there’s some applications related to that

United States Gross National Happiness

What is your usual mood?

… and many others.

The Emographic is one of the best projects for me, explains different borders.
Thanks!
notthisbody     Thu, Dec 31, 2009  Permanent link
Just found via Groundswell Collective Blog

Towards a Subjective Collective Cartography

Towards is an attempt to represent the territory of Brussels in a subjective way which leads to the creation of a collaborative tool for subjective mapping.

Two years ago, not-for-profit organizations Recyclart, City Mine(d), Constant, and the graphic designers from Speculoos launched the project “Towards a subjective collective cartography,” whose aim is to examine questions concerning the subjective representation of the territory of Brussels and to promote the passing on, exchange and pooling of those questions…

Currently, the project is carried out following two different trends: on one hand the creation of an atlas of Brussels and, on the other hand, the conception of a software (TRESOR).



See it BIG (pdf)

What is TRESOR?

A cartographic software: the question of connection.


The creation of a software also brings with it the question of classification (notably the way in which cartographic data is entered on the on-line service), however with an additional difficulty: the difficulty of the interaction and superposition of maps that have a variety of degrees of subjectivity and of systems of coordinates, the interest being their intercommunication. Maps may indeed represent the same territory to very different scales and at very different moments. And the same is true for two objects, which may be physically far away from each other and still mentally close. Consequently, how to connect and to intermingle maps that have different spatial, temporal or mental projections? It would be possible to connect them by defining the transverse elements between the maps, i.e. common features or zones of reference. But this spatial world that is divided between several maps tears when there is no correspondence left. How to manage that tear, which is for that matter interesting? And would it be possible to deform those maps in order to create new correspondences? In that case, which map would serve as a frame? Would it have to be spatially referenced?