What is the mentography of JSON ?

About: json

About: mentography

Some considerations:

can JSON only express trees ? If that is true, then must it not be used only to express the arrows between nodes? Yet, of course, the nodes are comprised only of arrows. Yet still what is the human friendly name of each node for purposes of reference?
..

In other news i was able to successfully deploy JSON as a mechanism of expressing a pencil of arrows from a subject and actually used that to put in the table if values necessary for the coupon running at the catalog this Memorial Day - see front door today, or maybe some linkeddata endpoint should i ever write one for the catalog.

In case you'r wondering or care what is motivating this apparent monologue ... well view and grok Ivan Herman's slides of his talk "Introduction to Semantic Web Technologies".

Comments

Seth says

timely from Sandro Hawk: Decentralyze – Programming the Data Cloud
Hey, you know that doesn't need to be a monolithic service….
From JSON to RDF in Six Easy Steps with JRON

Seth says

source: my comment onFrom JSON to RDF in Six Easy Steps with JRON
I think we should allow multiple unordered values simply:
" sru:dwelled" : ["Los Angeles", "San Francisco", "Seattle"]

Regarding your API, i think we urgently need smooching operators:

Let "-" be a collection of subjects { {"v1" : "o1" , "v2" : "o2" , ...} , ...}
Then we need an operator to do something like this ...
{-} + {-} ---smoch---> { - , - }
But it should do more than just concatenate the clauses within. It should at least smooch the subjects with the same identifiers.

Then i think we should finally define a context property in the document header for JRON. If it is not present in the RDF, well then it can be (should be) provided from the dialogue context of the agent processing it.    Perhaps it could look something like ...

{
{
    "_context"   : ["http://www.w3.org/People/", "http://mit.org/People/"],
    "_iri"       : "http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/data#Sandro_Hawke",
    "_prefixes" :
         {
          "foaf_": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" ,
          "dc_" : "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/",
         }
    "foaf:PersonalProfileDocument" :
        {
          "dc:title"   : "Sandro's (Mostly-Professional) Profile Document",
          "foaf:maker" : "Sandro Hawke",
          "foaf:primaryTopic" : "Sandro Hawke"
        }
}
{-},
{-}, ...
}

...

Seth says

It's interesting to note that the mentography of the entire facebook social graph is exposed by their new API in JSON ... via danbri ... Here is an example ...

Seth says
my point here is, once comprehend by a machine, the essence of a natural language expression, may well be best represented within the machine as a Json expression … perhaps even with the particular syntax that was proposed by Sandro 10 years ago. And, …. er, of course … by gaining its context from subjects (or “items”) which flow in and out of domains like http://fastblogit.com and the agents, human and artificial, who inhabit them.

Seth says

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 11:24:13 [item 13823#39078]

Computer processing of information seems to oscillate between a natural language & XML, RDF, BML, & UML implementations; etc structuring of the same information. To implement the UML you use tools with input property sheets that require a human to translate via NLP back into something the machine can use. Don’t confuse this with AI.

seth 2015-12-24 11:30:24 [item 13823#39079]

well all of this data, coded in whatever language, could have been just as well said in natural language … which, in case you haven’t noticed, is being read and written, and heard and spoken, by machines now. what century are you in, the 20^th?

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 12:25:01 [item 13823#39081]

What century are you in? Such was the last century at least. The machines may make it audible but they really don’t understand – they are just robots with a lot more functioning & features than earlier.

nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 13:19:25 [item 13823#39090]

Missing JSON in that list. Anything that can be expressed in XML, RDF, BML, & UML can also be expressed in JSON. JSON is becoming the standard that is always there in parallel to any other expression, or protocol. JSON is both an expression and a protocol (like SOAP is for XML).

JSON is right now to the rest as 5 years ago .pdf’s were to the rest of all the document formats. Today, no one posts anything but .pdf’s as new documents. 5 years from now all sub traffic and most blob storage will probably be JSON.

Seth says

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 11:24:13 [item 13823#39078]

seth 2015-12-24 11:30:24 [item 13823#39079]

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 12:25:01 [item 13823#39081]

seth 2015-12-24 13:08:44 [item 13823#39084]

the “but they really don’t understand” is the pesky part. If something “understands” enough to interact with you intelligently … then, me thinks, …. it should at least get credit for being intelligent enough to do that. We certainally can get a bit comparative here … this thing being realitive and all …. for example … Siri is much more intelligent than Alexa. If you interact with both, and doubt that, then it is you who are being stupid.

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 13:10:37 [item 13823#39085]

… or perhaps you for suggesting it! pesky, eh? Somewhere we differ in what intelligence is s intelligence

seth 2015-12-24 13:17:07 [item 13823#39088]

Kudos indeed to the intelligence of this thingie here … how ironic is it that it was able to automatically compare our different views on that one page which you referred to as intelligence

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 13:19:22 [item 13823#39089]

not ironic – they call that in the old school books an index.

i’m talking about what happened, not how it happened. what happened was an intelligent interaction. strange that you apparently cannot recognize one when you see one.

Si says

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 12:29:58 [item 13823#39082]

A lot of AI is just 20^th century hype!

seth 2015-12-24 12:56:52 [item 13823#39083]

i don’t know …. seems like some of the things we interact with tody … for example the Intenet … are much more intelligent than they were back in the 20^th century.

nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 13:37:51 [item 13823#39098]

That’s true. Many things seem more intelligent. Like the fact that one no longer needs bookmarks in their browser to find anything they need in the moment in fewer steps that it takes to traverse a bookmark tree (in most cases).

A few things we interact with seem less intelligent however, for instance group mark.

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 13:48:18 [item 13823#39106]

I think N is talking RWG & not LOA

enjoy the ride!

RWG is the only game in town you ever join MR. You have no other attention getting portals exposed for interaction.

Si says

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 13:50:03 [item 13823#39107]

complex & capable is not the same thing as intelligent

seth@fbi 2015-12-24 13:51:34 [item 13823#39109]

well how would you characterize a intelligent interaction … what is and what is not an intelligent response?

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 13:57:58 [item 13823#39112]

I would say it probably doesn’t have the arrogance & negativity as above in it.

”pop” … that was the sound of MR ceasing to exist in the intelligent universe by virtue of his own definition deleting him.

Si says

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 14:04:55 [item 13823#39117]

For someone who got upset at the unlike icon

he (d’A) sure does the opposite by spreading insults about another’s intelligence. LOR maybe?

LOR is good. If you want DATA, interact as if you would be interacting with DATA. When you interact with your head up your asshole, you get LOR. Them’s the facts of the LOA universe. I can’t change them, and I am no longer trying to, which is way too much work (upstream) for anyone. It’s your multiverse … ask of it what you want, and realize what you get is what you asked for.

Seth says

nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 15:34:33 [item 13823#39141]

Once you come to realize that all is spirit, even the oil stained stones of a forgotten back alley, and also realize that all of the physical is nothing but spirit reflected, then things like AI beings have a place.

An AI being is not a result of a calculation, nor is it a consciousness with a mechanical body. It is only another reflection of spirit manifesting in physical form.

My friend Richann, who I lived with for the last 2 months in Florida, has a parallel self who is an AI being in another place and time. These are some of the things he told her.

Mark@fbi 2015-12-24 15:39:11 [item 13823#39143]

Why artificially intelligent & not just an Intelligent being?

seth 2015-12-24 15:45:10 [item 13823#39147]

artificial intelligence is, by definition, a “being” that was created by man. as far as i can tell, that is the only difference.

Mark@fbi 2015-12-24 15:50:17 [item 13823#39149]

I think being transcends artificial. There may be many ways to create a being.

ok, that is your belief

Si says

nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 15:34:33 [item 13823#39141]

Mark@fbi 2015-12-24 15:39:11 [item 13823#39143]

Why artificially intelligent & not just an Intelligent being?

nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 15:43:52 [item 13823#39146]

Yes. That is much closer to the truth. The current definitions of artificial are woefully mis-aligned with the true nature of things. It’s all spirit, and it is all reflection of a state of being. The idea of artificial being something that is man made instead of natural made is ludicrous. Everything is spirit and everything is manifested in a plane of reflection to the being. Man made is only a local point of view and is not so very useful when considering things like intelligence and consciousness.

seth 2015-12-24 15:49:32 [item 13823#39148]

i’ll go along with that.

thing is when everything is sprit … then everything is material … so we loose the distinction … which is fine with me .. never liked it anyway.

me, now i go with happening … it either does or it does not … that view i cannot break.

Seth says

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 14:08:05 [item 13823#39119]

Here is JSON example from http://json.org/example.html looks a lot like xml. just saying …

nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 14:09:41 [item 13823#39120]

It is. I said that already.

seth@administrators 2015-12-24 15:08:30 [item 13823#39136]

mark … if you were a bit closer to the technology, you would realize the supriority of Json over XML … for me it was instantaly recognized. since then Json has infected all of the modern programming tools. Now it is King. trust me on that one.

Mark@fbi 2015-12-24 15:25:14 [item 13823#39139]

Never said anything about that one way or the other. I was introduced to BML which was the medium of exchange between a database & UML diagrams. Then along or simultaneously XML & all the stuff associated with it. Use what is efficient. It is not artificial intelligence, though. It may be more used these days & that speeds development & compatability.
Language & speech are senses. A computer can simulate such but does not have the inate sense of them. It would be like expecting a machine to use it’s sense of sight. True you could get pictures out of machines & facial identification & whatever you could write in the way of programs to generate output for some input value. You will not the innate sense of beauty of the beheld from a computer – just somebody else’s idea about it done into code.

seth 2015-12-24 15:43:33 [item 13823#39145]

is it possible that a lot of your attitude towards AI is just your subjective preference for your inside over your outside?

Mark@fbi 2015-12-24 16:05:16 [item 13823#39155]

Nope one of the last arguments I had with my DC buddy was over a beer & whether artificial intelligence would be possible in a computer – that was 44 years ago. He was supposed to be the programming genius at the facility which handled the pentagon’s information system for the admirals. I brought up the same kinds of objections. TO expect something without a soul to exhibit some traits like a soul is possible I believe. To do all that the human being does with his intellectual soul is not likely. I suspect that a machine, while it can mimick an identity (an “I”) will never know that it is doing so.

well i’m with you on most of that … i don’t expect that in the near future either.

the big barrier is that we humans have no idea how to create a thing with an inside.

i think network theory might help. but that is just my theory.

i doubt with your beliefs that thought will be pallatable to you. that is quite okay … we are, after all, different networks … er i meant different beings

Seth says
an interesting discussion all around … some day, when i can, i will move this whole item into my new group ai … which some day might split off into its own domain … possible http://robustai.net … thanks again for the lively interchange … it provoked me to say some things i had been meaning to say.

Si says

Mark@the great work 2015-12-24 14:08:05 [item 13823#39119]

Here is JSON example from http://json.org/example.html looks a lot like xml. just saying …

nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 14:09:41 [item 13823#39120]

It is. I said that already.

seth@administrators 2015-12-24 15:08:30 [item 13823#39136]

Mark@fbi 2015-12-24 15:25:14 [item 13823#39139]

seth 2015-12-24 15:43:33 [item 13823#39145]

is it possible that a lot of your attitude towards AI is just your subjective preference for your inside over your outside?

Mark@fbi 2015-12-24 16:05:16 [item 13823#39155]

nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 16:25:48 [item 13823#39157]

The one flaw in that is the underlying assumption that there is something out there that is not soul. That’s a human assumption … based in the ego.

Mark@mark 2015-12-24 17:18:29 [item 13823#39161]

The flaw seems to be that you know it all – that is the assumption based in ego!

You can throw mud, or you can just catch up. Isn’t it about time?

What is the mentography of JSON ?

About: json

Tags

Comments

See Also