Network of Networks - Revision history

TiberiusB: /* Some other info */

2025-09-21T17:23:34Z

Some other info

TiberiusB at 20:10, 10 August 2024

2024-08-10T20:10:45Z

TiberiusB: /* Completion */

2024-08-10T20:08:04Z

Completion

Sensorica-wiki at 21:12, 27 January 2023

2023-01-27T21:12:17Z

Sensorica-wiki at 17:13, 27 January 2023

2023-01-27T17:13:49Z

Sensorica-wiki: /* Complexity doing */

2023-01-27T16:39:56Z

Complexity doing

Sensorica-wiki: /* Interfaces between networks */

2023-01-27T16:39:35Z

Interfaces between networks

TiberiusB at 20:21, 11 October 2022

2022-10-11T20:21:50Z

TiberiusB: /* Introduction */

2022-10-11T20:18:41Z

Introduction

TiberiusB: /* Introduction */

2022-10-11T20:17:16Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:23, 21 September 2025
Line 375:		Line 375:

	We is a groupware that enables federation and composability of different groups using an unenclosable digital asset.		We is a groupware that enables federation and composability of different groups using an unenclosable digital asset.
		+
		+	=See also=
		+	[[Scale]] and the section on ''multi-scale''.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 10 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Like any other organization, networks form and shape around clusters of interests and values. Notwork-type organizations in general ([[OVNs]] and other types) are fractal structures, in the sense that networks can nest within networks. But since interests and values (culture) are powerful forces that regulate network interactions, they also define network boundaries. We can say that two networks are distinct if there is very little interaction between them, or if processes in one do not directly affect processes in another one. But despite distances / differences between networks, agents can build bridges / interface between distinct networks, bringing them closer together. Today, after over three decades of network gestation, we're moving very rapidly into a regime where networks are finding each other. We are seeing the emergence of a network-of-networks economy, which is in fact a structural aspect of the [[p2p economy]].	+	Like any other organization, networks form and shape around clusters of interests and values. Notwork-type organizations in general ([[OVNs]] and other types) are fractal structures, in the sense that networks can nest within networks. But since interests and values (culture) are powerful forces that regulate network interactions, they also define network boundaries. We can say that two networks are distinct if there is very little interaction between them, or if processes in one do not directly affect processes in another one. (This can be modelled using the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_blanket Markov Blanket] concept?) But despite distances / differences between networks, agents can build bridges / interface between distinct networks, bringing them closer together. Today, after over three decades of network gestation, we're moving very rapidly into a regime where networks are finding each other. We are seeing the emergence of a network-of-networks economy, which is in fact a structural aspect of the [[p2p economy]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, 10 August 2024
Line 283:		Line 283:

	Some related requirements remain - accounting reports and exports; permissions for visibility to part of the data based on agents one is associated with (if this is a requirement, unknown right now).		Some related requirements remain - accounting reports and exports; permissions for visibility to part of the data based on agents one is associated with (if this is a requirement, unknown right now).
		+
		+	=True commons as a necessary condition for existence of networks-of-networks=
		+	The following has been extracted from Sensorica - [https://www.sensorica.co/environment/hrea-demo-for-nrp-cas reference]
		+
		+	=About true commons=
		+
		+	Commons-based peer production (CBPP) is a new mode of production mediated by Internet technology, first described by Yochai Benkler in 2002, in the context of open source software. Since then, the practice has evolved in all spheres of human activity, including material peer production. In essence, people coordinate globally to create various types of digital assets, which are openly shared under various permissive licences, as commons. Shared assets may represent code (software), or CAD files (3D models of hardware), and usually include instructions on how to use or build, as well as context. Eventually, these designs are materialized / fabricated by users or intermediaries.
		+
		+	Hearing the term ‘digital commons’ we assume that it refers to assets shared-by-default, portable and uncapturable, allowing anyone, regardless of organizational affiliation, to further contribute to their development, fork and remix. In the current technical reality, these shared digital assets are stored on platforms like Github for software, or Thingiverse for hardware designs, where they are subject to the platform’s rules and limitations and are not very portable. Another major issue that plagues CBPP is the proliferation of random copies of files representing digital assets, which hinders practical collaboration.
		+
		+	By tracking content (in particular complex 3D models) and the economic activity data (use of resources, contributions with time, materials, money, etc.) using Valueflows, we generate incentives for collaboration around canonical digital resources, similar to how collaboration is structured on Github, but without centralization.
		+
		+	These new types of digital assets (true commons) will be able to exist as standalone entities on a serverless infrastructure, with the following basic features:
		+
		+	* organization agnostic and capture resistant
		+	* permissionless (anyone can access unencumbered)
		+	* rules driven (govern interactions with it, including modification)
		+	* unenclosable / uncapturable
		+	* hard to clone
		+	* allowing various property regimes, including nondominium (no one owns but everyone has access under certain rules)
		+	* shareable by default
		+	** location (traceability, search and find)
		+	** access control (governance, credentials, scheduling) - zero-knowledge proof?
		+	** custody (responsibility)
		+	** maintenance (obligations)
		+	* fully specified, machine readable: function, architecture, standards (dimensions, tolerances, quality), …
		+	* composable (aggregate into larger assets and pools of shareables)
		+	* able to interact with processes, in events like: create, consume, use, contribute with
		+	* processes need to be organization agnostic as well
		+
		+	==Initial steps for implementation==
		+
		+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|+ Step 1
		+	\|-
		+	! Commons are shared artifacts or assets that should be freed from organizational context and ownership.
		+	! Demonstrate flow of resources across organizational membranes
		+	\|-
		+	\| Bob develops an open source irrigation system for his garden. Everything you need to know about this irrigation system is packaged into a single digital artifact and stored as a stand-alone Resource. This digital artifact contains information about how to build the irrigation system (content), but also about how the irrigation system was created in the first place (economic data): Bob's activities, their type, duration, money spent on parts, the organizational context in which the work was done, everything is recoverable.
		+	Lynn evolves within another organizational context, geographically removed from Bob. She would like to build an irrigation system for her own garden. She performs an online search and finds a digital artifact that Bob created, detailing an irrigation system, a model. She accesses the model using her own digital environment and can now follow instructions to produce the irrigation system. Whenever she has questions she can message Bob, right there, on top of this Resource, similarly to how we create comments in a Google doc and tag someone in it. But Lynn needs to add a new feature to this device, so she develops it and appends it to the same digital artifact that Bob first created (content), including some information about her efforts (economic data). The new version of this digital artifact will continue to live its life as a stand-alone resource, waiting for someone else to interact with it, use it, improve it, fork it or remix it with something else.
		+	\|\| We can take the easy case of digital resources and show how they can exist outside of an organizational context (outside a community, company, platform, etc.), providing the ability to search and retrieve, collaborate, improve or fork. This digital artifact would have no owner, i.e. anyone can interact with this asset according to a set of rules, and no one can have more privileges than what the rules provide for anyone else, no one is above these rules, no one can delete this resource. A nice add-on would be to make these digital resources real-time collaborative, with versioning and history (ex. something like Google Docs). Would be even nicer to associate with every digital resource data about the process of its creation (agents, contributions, commitments, organizational context, where they are used, etc.). This would require, at least:
		+	* Ability to represent stand-alone digital resources (a text doc for example).
		+	* Ability to create new such digital resources.
		+	* Ability to set interaction rules, including access permissions.
		+	* Ability to search/discover and view digital assets (text files), made by anyone.
		+	* Ability to create lists of digital resources in own digital environments.
		+	* Ability to modify such digital resources.
		+	\|}
		+
		+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|+ Step 2
		+	\|-
		+	! Sharing processes makes possible interfacing open networks and communities.
		+	! Demonstrate processes shared by different organizations
		+	\|-
		+	\| Bob has developed an open source irrigation system for his garden and needs to make some modifications. To structure his work, he creates a Process, i.e. a plan of action, a series of tasks, associated with the stand-alone single digital artifact like mentioned in the previous story. This Process will have as an output a new version of the irrigation system and it expects as inputs the original version of the design and some resources, such as skills / time, money, materials, etc.
		+	Lynn evolves within another organizational context, geographically removed from Bob. She would like to build an irrigation system for her own garden. She performs a search and finds Bob's fully functional irrigation system represented by a digital artifact. She also finds Bob's Process associated with this digital artifact, in which Bob is active, improving the irrigation system. Looking at the Process, Lynn has access to the latest information about Bob's attempts to improve the design, including all his contributions in terms of time and money spent on parts, even his failed attempts. She accesses the Process and can now collaborate with Bob on making the improvements. Once their work is done the Process is closed and all their activities and the new set of technical specifications are packaged into a single digital artifact, stored as a stand-alone Resource (the new version). This artifact will wait for someone else to open another Process to interact with it, use it, improve it, fork it or remix it with something else, to which someone else can also contribute.
		+	\|\| We can take the simple case of Sensorica - TaoDAO interface, where peers from the two networks (organizational contexts) collaborate on content production (production of digital assets). For example, a blog post is co-created at this interface, peers from both organizations have access to the process (planning, tasks, roles, commitments, contributions, etc.). This shared process would produce a digital resource as described in 1. Note that this collaboration between Sensorica and Tao-DAO is mostly active in the context of Greens for Good. This would require at least:
		+	* Everything in the previous example.
		+	* Ability to represent a minimalist process associated with a stand-alone digital resource, in abstraction of organizational context and ownership.
		+	* Ability to create a new process.
		+	* Ability to assign a minimal set of rules to govern the process.
		+	* Ability to create lists of processes
		+	* Ability to search / discover processes created by anyone.
		+	\|}
		+
		+
		+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|+ Step 3
		+	\|-
		+	! Bureaucracies can't deal with complexity.
		+	! Demonstrate stigmergic collaboration
		+	\|-
		+	\| Bob has developed an open source irrigation system for his garden and needs to make yet another modification. To structure his work, he creates a new Process, like mentioned in the previous story. Lynn evolves within another organizational context, geographically removed from Bob. She once worked with Bob on this digital resource, but is now minding her own business. Bob needs some help with programming and creates a task that requires these skills, in the new Process. Because of her past contributions to this same Resource, Lynn receives a notification asking if she could help Bob, also offering her diner at her favorite local restaurant upon completion of the task. She accesses the Process and can now collaborate with Bob. Bob and Lynn package everything into a single digital artifact that is saved on a distributed database (as a stand-alone Resource). Once their work is done the Process is closed and all their activities and the new set of technical specifications are packaged into a single digital artifact, stored as a stand-alone Resource (the new version). This artifact will wait for someone else to open another Process to interact with it, use it, improve it, fork it or remix it with something else, to which someone else can also contribute.
		+	\|\| We can build on the content co-creative process described in 2. The idea is to create a minimalist digital environment on top of the Resource, in which agents can interact via digital pheromones (described here). This would require at least:
		+	* Everything in the previous example.
		+	* Ability to represent pheromones in a digital environment (can be a comment associated with the Resource or a Process associated with this Resource, a To Do call, a call for a decision process). See more on pheromones.
		+	* Ability to create pheromones and associate them to Resources and Processes.
		+	* Ability to filter pheromones based on their type
		+	* Ability to subscribe to specific pheromones, based on filter.
		+	* Ability to receive notifications based on subscriptions.
		+	\|}
		+
		+	In order to demo the above-mentioned features, we would need a way to store data permanently, in an unenclosable fashion, and a UI to interact with the Resource. When it comes to representations of digital work environments build around the a Resource we can take Daniel Harris' advice of user-defined interface, i.e. decouple the interface from the app, which is itself detached from the data. In other words, digital environments don't need to look the same for everyone engaging with the same Resource.
		+
		+	==Some other info==
		+
		+	Syn is an engine for unenclosable digital assets on [[Holochain]]. It enabled collective contribution to digital assets. It has been used on talking stikies and collective calendar hApps, which require collective contribution. We is a group ware hApp that creates an ecosystem of Syn based hApps.
		+
		+	[[hREA]] is one of the little resource planning platforms that enable seamless supply chain integrations. A module of NRP that exists in We, using Syn for representing an unenclosable digital asset.
		+
		+	We is a groupware that enables federation and composability of different groups using an unenclosable digital asset.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[OVNs]] and notwork-type organizations in general are fractal structures. At the same time, networks form and shape around clusters of interests and values. Despite differences between networks, they can still interface, forming a network-of-networks economy, which is in fact the structural aspect of the [[p2p economy]].
+Like any other organization, networks form and shape around clusters of interests and values. Notwork-type organizations in general ([[OVNs]] and other types) are fractal structures, in the sense that networks can nest within networks. But since interests and values (culture) are powerful forces that regulate network interactions, they also define network boundaries. We can say that two networks are distinct if there is very little interaction between them, or if processes in one do not directly affect processes in another one. But despite distances / differences between networks, agents can build bridges / interface between distinct networks, bringing them closer together. Today, after over three decades of network gestation, we're moving very rapidly into a regime where networks are finding each other. We are seeing the emergence of a network-of-networks economy, which is in fact a structural aspect of the [[p2p economy]].
 =Introduction=
@@ Line 10: / Line 13: @@
 * [[legal structure]]
-In other words, protocols must be conceived and implemented that allow multiple [[OVNs]] and any other type of network-type organization to interact at fundamental levels, for stable interaction patterns.
+Development of network-to-network interfaces is currently done within [[Sensorica]] as part of the [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector 4th sector] (see also  [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector/NOICE NOICE]) and [https://www.sensorica.co/products/dlt/wealth-transfer Re-Imagining Wealth]  initiatives. Historically, the efforts started with the [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ls4Cg5liqv5Bc-E0wz_IY2yhzQ55cS20?usp=sharing Open Alliance] initiative.
-Development of network-to-network interfaces is currently done within [[Sensorica]] as part of the [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector 4th sector] (see also  [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector/NOICE NOICE]) and [https://www.sensorica.co/products/dlt/wealth-transfer Re-Imagining Wealth]  initiatives. Historically, the efforts started with the [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ls4Cg5liqv5Bc-E0wz_IY2yhzQ55cS20?usp=sharing Open Alliance] initiative.
+At the infrastructure level, protocols must be conceived and implemented that allow multiple [[OVNs]] and any other type of network-type organization to interact at fundamental levels, to form stable interaction patterns.
 =Interfaces between networks=
@@ Line 19: / Line 23: @@
 During the middle ages cities were built like fortresses, which were silos of socioeconomic activity, connected by risky exchange routes. As time went by, societies developed infrastructure to connect cities at different levels: transport (roads), communication (media), energy (electrical grid), governance (government), etc.
 Because of today's web architecture, information infrastructures that support organizations are effectively silos, organizations are built like fortresses. Building networks of networks means building formal relations between networks that are complementary, i.e. building formal bridges to allow flows or stuff.
 For example, we can share a calendar between two (or more) networks to provide visibility to events and to plan shared events. We can share repositories, providing access to digital assets (e.c documents) to participants in different networks. We can share communication channels, allowing participants in different networks to talk to each others.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[OVNs]] and notwork-type organizations in general are fractal structures. At the same time, networks form around clusters of interests and values. Despite differences between networks, they can still interface with one another forming a network-of-networks economy, which is in fact the structural aspect of the [[p2p economy]].
+[[OVNs]] and notwork-type organizations in general are fractal structures. At the same time, networks form and shape around clusters of interests and values. Despite differences between networks, they can still interface, forming a network-of-networks economy, which is in fact the structural aspect of the [[p2p economy]].
 =Introduction=
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 * [[legal structure]]
-In other words, protocols must be conceived and implemented that allow multiple [[OVNs]] and any other type of network-type organization to interact at fundamental levels, formally.
+In other words, protocols must be conceived and implemented that allow multiple [[OVNs]] and any other type of network-type organization to interact at fundamental levels, for stable interaction patterns.
 Development of network-to-network interfaces is currently done within [[Sensorica]] as part of the [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector 4th sector] (see also  [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector/NOICE NOICE]) and [https://www.sensorica.co/products/dlt/wealth-transfer Re-Imagining Wealth]  initiatives. Historically, the efforts started with the [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ls4Cg5liqv5Bc-E0wz_IY2yhzQ55cS20?usp=sharing Open Alliance] initiative.

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 Another concept here is to allow symbiosis, through these interfaces that are built case-by-case.
-=Complexity doing=
+==Complexity doing==
 Proposed by [[Vini]], bypass formal representations, interfaces, and build individual to individual connections, nurture these connections.
 [[Lauren]] talks about co-creating spaces where these "healthy" relations can emerge from interactions.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 27 January 2023
Line 25:		Line 25:

	Another concept here is to allow symbiosis, through these interfaces that are built case-by-case.		Another concept here is to allow symbiosis, through these interfaces that are built case-by-case.
		+
		+	=Complexity doing=
		+	Proposed by [[Vini]], bypass formal representations, interfaces, and build individual to individual connections, nurture these connections.
		+	[[Lauren]] talks about co-creating spaces where these "healthy" relations can emerge from interactions.
		+	[[Tim]] speaks about a multiplicity of processes, processes running in parallel, some amplifying others and even having a suppressing effect.
		+	All this to day that when two organizations collide for the first time, facilitation means creating this "space", co-create the social norms that allows these connections individual to individual (NOT representative to representative, dissolve the organizational walls) to build these p2p relations, build these synapses between the two organizations. Once these interactions densify, the networks are de-facto interconnected, interfacing with each other.
		+	Perhaps, as the networks increase their bandwidth of interaction, some protocols / structures can emerge.

	=Growth of network of networks=		=Growth of network of networks=

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 11 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[]~~OVNs~~] and notwork-type organizations in general are fractal structures. At the same time, networks form around clusters of interests and values. Despite differences between networks, they can still interface with one another forming a network-of-networks economy, which is in fact the structural aspect of the [[p2p economy]].	+	[[OVNs]] and notwork-type organizations in general are fractal structures. At the same time, networks form around clusters of interests and values. Despite differences between networks, they can still interface with one another forming a network-of-networks economy, which is in fact the structural aspect of the [[p2p economy]].

	=Introduction=		=Introduction=

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 * [[infrastructure]]
 * [[governance]]
 * [[legal structure]]
 Development of network-to-network interfaces is currently done within [[Sensorica]] as part of the [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector 4th sector] (see also  [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector/NOICE NOICE]) and [https://www.sensorica.co/products/dlt/wealth-transfer Re-Imagining Wealth]  initiatives. Historically, the efforts started with the [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ls4Cg5liqv5Bc-E0wz_IY2yhzQ55cS20?usp=sharing Open Alliance] initiative.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 =Introduction=
-This is a discussion about modeling ''networks of networks'' and the dynamics of their formation.
+This is a discussion about modeling ''networks of networks'' and the dynamics of their formation. This discussion includes aspects of [[Organizational structure]], such as:
-This is also part of the [[OVNi]] discussion.
+* [[culture]] and [[ethos]]
 Development of network-to-network interfaces is currently done within [[Sensorica]] as part of the [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector 4th sector] (see also  [https://www.sensorica.co/ventures/4th-sector/NOICE NOICE]) and [https://www.sensorica.co/products/dlt/wealth-transfer Re-Imagining Wealth]  initiatives. Historically, the efforts started with the [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ls4Cg5liqv5Bc-E0wz_IY2yhzQ55cS20?usp=sharing Open Alliance] initiative.