November
9, 2006
(a proposal creating a “.vir” standard)
(Foundational papers are on an index page)
The ".vir" subnet standards are being developed to provide a total architected solution, consistent with the notion that advertising should not be pushed to the individual, without the individual’s expressed consent. The architecture allows a choice of information environments, the current mainstream Internet or one that instruments a transparency where quality information is pulled using individually created pull-services. [1] The solution is “complete” because of a deep study of the past application of computer science to Internet based human communication.
The “.vir” architecture starts with an high level [2] ontological model of production and distribution systems. The “.vir” high level ontological model provides a taxonomy and controlled vocabulary with which computational services can be provisioned in support of a specific kind of production and distribution system. The model is based on general systems theory and focuses on understanding economic and social exchanges where very high quality information about products and processes is easily available.
The “.vir” standard depends on these ontological models. Production and distribution systems are modeled as a set of processes that are occurring within an ecosystem of transaction systems. Since the current production and distribution system capitalizes on strong forms of information control, some of the concepts developed in business process re-engineering are available as “.vir” transition services. The transition is to a model where a service repository of high quality information is made available to ontology-mediated services. These services help existing businesses develop an model of current processes as well as a set of templated future models of how that specific business could operate within the “.vir” standards.
The general nature of transaction spaces is addressed extensively in my on line book. [3] The production of knowledge and the use of that knowledge occur within a transaction system. The production aspects are only completely understood if one has a proper background; for example in cognitive neuroscience, behavioral neuroscience, linguistics, social biology, and cultural anthropology. Moreover, knowledge of the foundational curriculum in these disciplines is not sufficient. Meditative knowledge such as discussed by Bohm and Krishnamurti [4] may be sufficient, but the synthesis of meditative knowledge and new perspectives on science is desirable.
Services offered within a production and distribution system are complex but are often economic in nature.
When looking at, for example, the production and distribution of herbal substances from the rain forests one can imagine the use of the best part of the current international service oriented architecture methods and standards. [5]
By “best part”, I am making a necessary reference to the “standardization efforts” by the IT industry powerhouses. [6] Again, these industry powerhouse have strongly controlled information and it is this control of information that the “.vir” standards is designed to modify. [7]
Clear mindedness and acute observation suggests that a social confusion over the nature of computing and or human knowledge has been accepted because of the confusion that exists in the universities over the nature of computation and formal modeling of natural systems. [8] The first six years of this current century shows that this deception was not the only deception having a historical nature. [9]
So already one comes to appreciate that the modeling of transactions spaces can be, and is, serving specific special interests.
The Knowledge Sharing Foundation and the “.vir” standards have been developed as the conceptual foundation. The purpose of our capitalization drive (starting January 1, 2007) is to create a viable alternative to both the current Internet and to television. This is not a business process alone, and the foundation to be established will have a charter based on an extension and refinement of the 1997 BCNGroup Charter. [10]
In summary: If one looks at the pure task of creating service architecture that plays a role in any generic transaction space, then one does this very differently than has the US Federal CIO Council, SUN Microsystems, IBM, Cisco, etc. The key elements of our proposal are:
· The Knowledge Sharing Foundation (1999) [11] is a process model for facilitating the evolution of a pure infrastructure designed to have no competitive advantage.
· The BCNGroup Charter provides a legal structure that establishes the first International Science Foundation and serves to mediation governmental patent office rulings and awards.
· The “.vir” Internet subnet standards are developed to separate push and pull information using a service oriented architecture.
· The “.vir” Internet subnet standards provide provably optimal data processing [12] and digital property management. [13].
We welcome comment.
[1] Prueitt, Paul S (October 2006) “Digital Media Opportunity”. URL:
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/TaosDiscussion/digitalMedia.htm
[2] Such a high level ontological model is sometimes called a “upper” or a “upper abstract” ontology. However, the phrase “upper ontology” became a battle ground in 2000 – 2004. In 2004, the phrase was generally given up to W3C advocates. From the “second school” point of view, an upper abstract ontology is composed of a set of abstract concepts that “covers” the semantic space, without going into specifics. Thus the upper ontology would not have logical apparatus and no “semantics” would be imposed.
[3] Prueitt, Paul S (evolving set of chapters): “Foundations for Knowledge Science”. URL:
[4] The Bohm-Krishnamurti dialogue is well documented by the first elements of a Google search: URL
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=David+Bohm+Krishnamurti&btnG=Search
[5] I am referring to the several IT standards bodies, but in particular to the W3C and OASIS standards bodies: URL: www.w3c.org and www.oasis.org
[6] It is a sad claim to make, but one that is necessary to reflect recent past histories, that the industry powerhouse are focused on creating localized competitive advances. These efforts are undertaken while pretending to develop a service architecture that is an easily available and uses open source infrastructure. As I have shown in evidence acquired between 1998 and 2005, this deception is an intentional deception and is very likely in direct violation of a number of US Federal laws regarding government contracting. The total direct funding contracts involved purposefully in this deception total in excess of 80 billion dollars. The nature of the deception by the IT industry is coupled to other deceptions, and motivated us to found the second school. The fact that DARPA, NIST and a few other agencies have willing participated in this deception excuses all of this from the US Waste Fraud and Abuse laws. However, there are other laws on the books. The core conjecture to investigate is that the Bush Administration give government procurement process design over to industry.
[7] We should point of that the “.vir” standard uses transparency and digital object instrumentation to provable measure all uses of any digital object that is owned and registered as such within the service architecture. See: Prueitt, Paul S (2006) “The Digital Media Opportunity” URL:
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/TaosDiscussion/digitalMedia.htm
[8] Prueitt, Paul S. (1997). “Is Computation Something New?”
Prueitt, Paul S. (1996a). Is Computation Something New?, published in the Proceedings of NIST Conference on Intelligent Systems: A Semiotic Perspective. Session: Memory, Complexity and Control in Biological and Artificial Systems. October 20-23.
URL: http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter2.htm
[9] The issues raised here are about culturally accepted deceptions. In “A Question of Access” I develop a original theory as to why most American adults has self deceived themselves regarding their natural ability to understand arithmetic. In this work, a general theory of “Image of Self” is grounded in theoretical immunology. http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/QuestionOfAccess/AQA.htm and in mathematical models of neural function:
Eisenfeld, J. & Prueitt, P.S. (1988.)
Systemic Approach to Modeling Immune Response.
Proc. Santa Fe Institute on Theoretical Immunology. (A. Perelson, ed.)
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
J. Kowalski; A. Ansari; P. Prueitt; R.
Dawes and G. Gross (1988.) On Synchronization and Phase Locking in Strongly
Coupled Systems of Planar Rotators. Complex Systems 2, 441-462.
Levine, D. & Prueitt, P.S. (1989.) Modeling Some Effects of Frontal Lobe Damage - Novelty and Preservation, Neural Networks, 2, 103-116.
[10] The Behavioral Computational Neuroscience Group Charter. URL:
[11] The Knowledge Sharing Foundation URL:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/knowledgeSharingFoundation.htm
[12] Provably optimal data processes is discussed in the “Notational Paper: URL:
[13] Digital property management is discussed in the paper:
Prueitt, Paul S (2006) “The Coming Revolution in Information Science” URL:
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/TaosDiscussion/secondschool.htm
and in the short (2 page) executive paper:
Prueitt, Paul S (2006). “Digital Media Opportunity” URL:
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/TaosDiscussion/digitalMedia.htm