Hey James, is the WiserVision page @
http://www.wiserearth.org/article/2ada234d39aa88d309ee6d9c37094cf1
the one you wrote as a result of our discussion here?

Not quite sure, but here are some ideas:
- WiserEarth as a Semantic Web of Self-Organizing Entities
- Designing WiserEarth for Purpose and Self-Organization
- Mimicing Living Systems in WiserEarth's Design, Features, Policies and User Experience

Hey James, you present some very intriguing ideas on building a software layer in WiserEarth geared toward making entities self-organize in a beneficial manner.

I would really love to explore your ideas further in a more comprehensive manner since this seems to be an "advanced" topic for many, including me. Could you possibly put the concept in a wikipage beginning with some basic explanations (e.g. explanation on what a "meme" is, why self-organization is important, why we need to mimic living systems, etc) all the way up to how it will translate to WiserEarth's design and the user experience?

I know at least one other WiserEarthling that would be interested with translating operational principles of living systems into WiserEarth's design, features, policies and interaction.

Hi ziza, I've forwarded and add to your excellent suggestion in the "Suggestions" forum @ http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/Suggestions with the title "Adding a Short Description Space Under Discussion Title". You can go there by clicking this link http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/843d18235a1286cedb42eb3ae03fa292

If you have any other suggestion, please go to the "Feedback >> Suggestions" link from the homepage

Excellent! Looking forward for the mock-up Camilla.

Hey all :)

Hey Michael: Glad you can see the value in the integration of Earth Charter and WiserEarth. We have a long way to go indeed, no need to rush things.

You're naming adaptation into ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC and DEMOCRACY along with the classification of the Main AoF I think is just right for our immediate need.

As for "In the long term I would like to see the top three levels be a carbon copy of Earth Charter, with the bottom level being redone to take the place of the current sub-areas.", this is also a good idea to consolidate cross-overs and redundancies.

However, I still think we need at least a fourth (or even a fifth) level AoF to accommodate smaller issues such as "Male Circumcision" and "Aquarium Trade", which some users are supporting. We need to make them selectable/assignable to WE entities, but we don't have to assign a full-blown portal page for these AoFs, but a wikipage much like that being used for the current Sub AoF. We can then list these smaller AoFs under the "Sub-Topics" tab in the portal template adam is designing at the moment.


Hey David: Ess-plode... hahaha :D

Excellent for this --> "The change is flipping the labeling for the second and third levels in your hierarchy, so the labels are number-letter-number, instead of number-number-letter. Adding a fourth level (number-letter-number-letter) for the existing Main AoFs, while stilling keeping the numbers you used for them, will help me and may aid the rest of us in the transition. I'll offer that for the group's comments."

I decided to go with number-number-letter just to make things compatible with the way Earth Charter is numbering things. Once we simplified things, your approach would be more suitable, especially considering Michael's suggestion on redoing the third level taxonomy (that is, the 53 sub-principles of the Earth Charter), which might imply that we'll have more than 53 AoF on that level, where using numbers would be more suitable and straightforward.

You also defined one of the biggest problem we'll face in the transition in a way that allows for solutions to emerge when you said "Splitting AoFs is more complex since existing attached entities (users, orgs, etc.) would need to be translated/transported or duplicated. Deleting AoFs would also be a problem, since entities would lose the attachment, and without a higher level AoF to default to, would be left in the lurch."

Looking forward for your work on the biological issues.


Dear Paul: Lovely!

It's an honor that you care to drop in a message here. And it's a wonderful coincidence that as I'm writing this reply, the postman delivered your gift of Blessed Unrest in my doorsteps. This surely will fill my end of the year with light and joy. Bless you!

Hey, all:

Hey, Michael: Oops, I didn't have your comment on my screen when I was responding to Bowo. I think your idea for a short term solution using the existing 46, and using the three from the Earth Charter, is a very good improvement. It is even a transition to integrating the Earth Charter principles and WE in its own right, and if I understand the functions correctly, will not impact the lower levels, but be mostly a page redesign.

You certainly understand the internal priorities and technical issues better than me, so your help on what is implementable and what isn't is important. I guess the only distinctions I would ask for are what is simply not implementable, what is not implementable right now, and what can be carried out in a fairly short timeframe. It is pointless to produce work with the first distinction, so we should obviously focus on the second and third.

Given what I read here, starting on simple changes to the 379 may be the best first step. Additions, to acknowledge AoFs not earlier included, seems to be easiest to start with. Changing the wording of some for clarity should also be relatively simple. Splitting AoFs is more complex since existing attached entities (users, orgs, etc.) would need to be translated/transported or duplicated. Deleting AoFs would also be a problem, since entities would lose the attachment, and without a higher level AoF to default to, would be left in the lurch. If we can arrange these and any others in a priority that would help. Comments on this are certainly welcome.

Thanks for the help and encouragement, and have a great holiday!

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Hi Everyone,

Bowo - I think you've convinced me to become an advocate for the Earth Charter adoption. Full implementation is going to be a long process with technical issues, so I suggest we develop a short term solution that could start soon. This short term solution would have three levels. The top level would be the three areas from Earth Charter: Ecological, Social, and Democracy. The second level would hold the current 46 Areas of Focus unchanged. The bottom level would simply be the current sub-areas under the 46.

The 46 Areas of Focus should probably be divided up as follows:

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Agriculture and Farming
Air
Animalia
Biodiversity
Coastal and Marine Ecosystems
Conservation
Ecology
Energy
Fishers
Forestry
Global Climate Change
Greening of Industry
Inland Water Ecosystems
Mining
Plants
Pollution
Religion, Ecology, Sustainability
Sustainable Cities
Sustainable Design
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Water

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
Arts
Business and Economic
Children and Youth
Cultural Heritage
Education
Food and Nourishment
Globalization
Health
Human Rigths and Social Justice
Indigenous People and Rights
Law, Policy, Property Rights
Men
Population
Poverty Eradication
Seniors
Technology
Women
Work

DEMOCRACY
Community Development
Democracy and Voting
Governance
Media
Peace, War, Security
Civil Society Organizations

****

In the long term I would like to see the top three levels be a carbon copy of Earth Charter, with the bottom level being redone to take the place of the current sub-areas. That could definitely be awhile, and there might be reasons why it might be bad idea that I have not thought of.

Until then, I'll write up a summary of this work for presentation to Paul.

Thanks Bowo for your good work. And everyone involved in this discussion should give themselves a hand.

Hey, all:

Hey, Bowo: Heh heh, "...nothing more than scratching an itch :P"? You are too modest, Bowo. You have done a great deal of useful work here, so the praise is appropriate.

Like Camilla, Michael, and Michael, it'll take me a while to grasp all of it (maybe even longer!), but what you call an exercise can, I think, be used as a huge part of the reorganization of the AoFs, that can also stand as an integration of two major proponents of global civil and environmental improvement. I have started to apply my own approach to the biological issues in the AoFs, so I will adapt this to what you have done as a template.

I would ask one thing of you, and that is to provide a key to the various elements--colors, numbers, levels, groupings, etc., to help define what things mean and where they come from. You have yellow, gray and sky blue blocks, plain and bold print, symbols, etc. Knowing what the elements are and where they come from--Earth Charter, WE, Take It Global, etc., would be a big help.

Based on what I have read here, it seems the answer to your question "What does "it is up to the editors group to decide" means?" is that as WE matures, NCI will gradually move aside and allow more of the responsibility to shift to the WE members, including the volunteer, recruited editors. This intent adds gravity to the need to recruit good editor candidates, as in the forum on editor recruitment. I certainly invite those of you with NCI to confirm, correct or elaborate on this.

There are two answers from Camilla that together cause me some concern. One is the removal of the restriction of a maximum 60 AoFs users can select. I can see some users going overboard selecting AoFs, and even I ran out when the limit was 60! The other is the difficulty in implementing the use and selection of the upper tiers as AoFs. The first could cause more AoFs to be selected--the second (if implemented) could allow the selection of many fewer AoFs.

You have done an excellent job, Bowo. Congratulations!

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Wow, Bowo - fantastic work. You have been busy! Great document and chart.

I will take a look at these suggestions in detail and compare the Earth Charter taxonomy to that of the World Future Council - I think both have merit and would address the usablity issue that we are trying to solve. I think adding either one or two levels above the existing taxonomy will solve usability issues - this is the main issue we would like to address initially, at least for the time being, until we have the resources to address all the other issues around the taxonomy.

To David's question, for the time-being, users will only be able to choose sub-AoFs (to David's question) to add to their profiles as a change to this will require a much larger overhaul of the current taxonomy system. In terms of the restriction of AoFs - this has now been removed. Users can add an unlimited number of sub-AoFs to their profiles.

The topics that I had included on an earlier discussion were indeed the ones that Bowo listed from Taking IT Global:

ARTS & MEDIA:
CULTURE & IDENTITY:
ENVIRONMENT & URBANIZATION:
HEALTH & WELLNESS:
HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUITY:
LEARNING & EDUCATION:
PEACE, CONFLICT & GOVERNANCE:
TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION:
WORK & ECONOMICS


To Bowo's questions:
1. What is the general policy (guideline) of the taxonomy design? (i.e. How did the current taxonomy came into being and how will this guideline determine the development of the taxonomy in the future?)

It was driven by the content that was found through researching the 100,000 organizations that populate the organizations database. We had about 100 people all over the world (including staff, volunteers, interns) who inputted the data and helped to develop the taxonomy based on their research (if the work of an organization didn't fit with any of the existing AOFs, a new area was created. A naturalist also helped to consult on the AOFs and many of his recommendations were integrated into the list.

2. Will there be a cap on the numbers of Sub AoF? (this will relate to JTHESSERT's concern of too many links)

No, I don't think there will be a cap, however, I don't imagine there will be more than a handful of additions - WE didn't presume to have covered all areas of focus, so this has purposely been left open for discussion and feedback. E.g. Men and Violence was added more recently as this had not been included and a number of community members felt very strongly about its addition to the taxonomy.

3. What are the parameters in deciding that a particular issue be given the status of Sub AoF and given a corresponding portal page? (i.e. at what level of detail will an issue be given the status of Sub AoF, instead of a sub-topic within a Sub AoF)

The way for deciding whether a sub AoF should exist or not...is based on whether the existing AoFs are broad enough that they will include a number of organizations, but not too specific that it covers just one or two organizations. At the moment, the additions of the new AOFs was based on feedback from a number of members of the community - they justified the inclusion/addition of the new sub AoFs based on their expertise in the area. We wrote the new definitions/portals with the help of the community and then added these.

4. Will the taxonomy be limited to three levels of Top AoF, Main AoF and Sub AoF? or will there be a fourth to accommodate the growing numbers of Sub AoF (some of which might also be too detailed/specific to be given the status of Sub AoF)?

Either a 3 level or 4 level taxonomy would work given the current number of AoFs - it is up to the editors group to decide which would enhance the user experience the most.

5. If in the end we have, say, 1000 Sub AoF and 1000 corresponding portals, will this be OK? In other words, regardless of the difficulty in reading a list of 1000 topics to choose from, was the original intention of the taxonomy design to accommodate collaboration on as many issues as possible in so many Sub AoF portals? Or is it expected that this will be solved by "simplify[ing] the AOF page and the AOF selection box" as Camilla mentioned? For example, by using a tree-like collapsible/expandable list of AoF (as MichaelK suggested in another discussion) while maintaining 1000 sub AoF and portals?

I don't believe we will ever have 1000 sub AoFs - again, we are not trying to grow the AoFs actively since this would be too many categories for anyone to navigate through. However, we may find that this list needs to extend a bit to include all the great work that is being done out there to address the issues of the day. In terms of collaboration, the current list of 379 AoFs is already long - I think we really need to improve the tools for collaboration (and usability) rather than increase the number of issue areas covered (which I don't think is an issue for users).

6. Is merging/deleting Sub AoF a possibility? or an absolute no?

Indeed, this could happen....we haven't done this yet, so not sure how it would be approached from a technical perspective.

7. Currently there seems to be a cap of 60 Sub AoF that a user can select (and perhaps any other WiserEarth entities such as orgs, resources, events, etc.). Why 60 instead of 10 for example? Is this number changeable? What role did this cap was intended to play in the first place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of assigning this cap ?

This is now unlimited.

8. Other than the difficulty/impossibility of deleting/merging Sub AoF, I noticed that the design of the current taxonomy is actually quite flexible for change. This is because, WiserEarth entities can only be assigned Sub AoF (not the Main AoF, and seemingly not the Top AoF we are trying to find in this discussion), which means that the Main AoF is quite flexible for change (creating new, deletion, or merger some) without affecting the current assignment of Sub AoF to WE entities. Is this observation of mine agreeable? or the Main AoF, like the sub AoF are not changeable (no deletion/merger)?

Absolutely....as a result I think we could implement this new high level taxonomy relatively easily as long as the main and sub AoFs are kept in place.

9. At the level of Sub AoF with our 8000 or so user base, there seems to be discrepancies or anomalies which could be hints in developing/changing the current taxonomy. For example:
Popular ones:
- Human Rights Protection (10116 organizations) (300 users)
- Environmental Education (13176 organizations) (1007 users)
Not-so-popular ones:
- Aquarium Trade (3 organizations) (24 users)
- Male Circumcision (9 organizations) (24 users)
- Shrublands (11 organizations) (35 users)
This facts relates to question no. 3 above, in the way that, isn't "Aquarium Trade" an issue too specific/detailed to be put in the same level with "Environmental Education" within the taxonomy?
While dedicating a portal to a deep and broad issue like "Environmental Education" makes a lot of sense, won't dedicating a portal page for a specific issue like "Male Circumcision" an overkill? Isn't it better to put issues such as this as "sub-topics" within Sub AoF?
Or are these facts just caused by our too-small user base?
Or are all of these facts OK in the sense that "the original intention of the taxonomy design was to accommodate collaboration on as many issues as possible in so many Sub AoF portals"? (refer to question no.5)

Again we want to be able to be as inclusive as possible, but without being too broad. The question is 'what is too broad' and 'what is too inclusive'. For example, the community member who suggested male circumcision was very passionate about the reason why this new sub-area should be included - he made a very good case for inclusion and so it was added. But by adding it retrospectively, it does not have many orgs tagged with that AoF.

In terms of Aquarium Trade, there are organizations that work in this area and it would be too broad to put them in 'global trade' or 'fish', so for people who are specifically looking to address this area, Aquarium Trade really does describe the work being done.

10. Some Sub AoF seems alike or are about similar issues. For example, in "(Main AoF) Sub AoF" format:
(Business and Economics) Ecological Economics
(Business and Economics) Natural Capitalism
(Greening of Industry) Industrial Ecology
(Sustainable Development) Sustainable Development
When a portal (such as the on adam is designing at the moment) is assigned to each sub AoF, "Discussions" on a topic, say "Calculating Earth's carrying capacity" may happen across four portals simultaneously. Is this ok?

It is tricky avoiding cross-over in any categorization, especially given the extent of the fields of work that the social justice and environmental movement are involved in. Any Aof page can be linked to any sub-portal (and the same for sub-portals) , so that the issue of cross-over will be addressed.

11. Some Sub AoF can seemingly be put under more than one Main AoF. For example:
- (Sustainable Design) Sustainable Materials Sub AoF--> "Sustainable Design" and "Greening Industry" Main AoF.
- (Greening of Industry) Life Cycle Assessment Sub AoF --> "Sustainable Design" and "Greening Industry" Main AoF.

Yes, they can....again, this cross-over is bound to happen. Over time, however, we hope to be able to minimize this redundancy as we improve the AoFs further.