Focusing the Use of the Internet
or
How to Personalize the Use of the open Internet system

Copyright 2006, Erez Elul, 2006. All right reserved.
No permission for copying or redistribution is given, please contact.

Ok, what is the Next after Web 2.0 ?

If Web 2.0 is syndicating, sharing and taking the internet to its elementary pieces, then the Next is applying activates between the elements of Web 2.0.

If Content in Web 2.0 is an elementary piece, then the Next elementary piece is the relations per se, which are combined in the content, between such contents and which are linked by/via/to it.

Imagine peers having their private "knowledge base" on each of their machines. Imagine each of the peers employs each other's machines, but contrary to grid computing or distributed computing, they do so in short pulses and in a developed reaction, in which each of the peers forms and not only performs the tasks, while earning and ranking the trust of the others.

If sharing in Web 2.0 is exercised by delivery of contents, then another scale of processing the information is opened up for such communities.

~~~~~~

Here I try to express what I am developing, shortly it is a peer to peer application, where each peer has knowledge base, flexibly integrating any sort of tables and xml structures, where any element/sequence/part/whole in the base may be an expression attached to a token being a number able to be exposed in a communication between the peers and where the token in each base is attached also to an authorized id for security matters.

This application enables a common knowledge base, developed in a dynamic, flexible and personalized manner, between peers authorizing each other in the building of their community of/for their interest and it can be used up to the extant of automated common knowledge base, such that at any given moment each peer can employ for accomplishing her/his task, many other peers in such community.

It is all based on still unknown/new technology, which I invented long ago, namely the pile technology. Using this tech enables to convert "any thing" to be only a mass of integrated ordered relations, build in a recursive manner. In this mass any relation may be an object able to be related in order with any other such relation.

For more please use the contact us. thanks.

Introduction

As the open Internet system is always richer, still a focused use of it is, or feels, unreachable.

In other words:
On my computer, when having no access to the Internet, as it is a close system, I have control depending on my knowledge about the system, and so I can determine the focus of me using the system. But the Internet is an open system, and so determining the focus of using it is temporal and becoming loose in long term.

What I argue is, that centralizing the use of the Internet around strong servers, if it can resolve all our usages, is temporal and exhausting (with growing complexity of balancing), whereas for longer terms the architecture of Growing-selforganizing-communities can resolve the Focusing (of) the use of the Internet better and in more flexible conditions.

Such Growing-self-organizing-community acts like grid computing or distributed computing applied entirely, simultaneously and instantly on problems in Focus of the community, with dynamical, flexible and scalable attachment of tokens to sequence/s of knowledge. (See: What is the Knowing in the Focusing?)

This architecture is called in short p2pcommunities, because its approach is of parts (the peers) building wholes serving themselves and each other, instead of having one container for all (the server), serving each and any (client).

This approach also addresses the fact, that in longer terms, with different issues to be triggered and processed in such focuses, the context, the ranking in which, and/or the language get be differed in communities, thereby the use of tokens is influenced, expecting that communities along the time get be specified/specialized as they get self-organized.

In short, by our speech we are unified and functioning.

There are two factors involved in development of language per community, namely the emphasizing of the unity with its distinction out of the others, and the specialized functioning or Focus in the unity, as for such developments you can see the newspeak in 1984 of George Orwell, any street speach, any political, sexual or technical terms etc.(As a sidetrack about 1984, you can see my view.)

So always one can ask about the distinguished expressions (communicated as tokens) between and in communities, does it make the individual using it to be disconnected from the outside of the community and be connected in the community (see german language as a measure for being well educated) and thereby, is it a mean for unifying the individual in the community? And also, are different tokens developing differently in communities for to actually mean different things and/or for applying different functioning?

Of course for one of us mostly it is both, but sometimes there is more of the less new meaning for some of us and some time of the more new meaning in new use of tokens, again for some of us.

Conclusion:

The context, the ranking in which, or any language is developed with the development of a community and its tokens do not apply the same to all individuals, especially when they are interwoven in some different communities, as we, the Internet users, are, i.e. there is no one meaning, but meaning and functioning can built along reaction (as a reference see the approach of constructivism).

Up to such extreme of complexity is the objective of the p2pcommunities.

1) What is Focusing?

In, by and along varied scales of reactions, Focusing is the confining, which increases the concentration of attention converging on, or toward, knowing more and/or wanting to know more.

In other words:
A) Focusing lives in, by and along varied scales of reactions;
B) Focusing uses confining, while increasing concentration of attention, such that in the restriction applied by discrimination more relations between more events, which may be found relevant, are present and/or are deeper;
C) successful Focusing results in knowing more and/or in higher expectation for knowing more; and
D) when Focusing is evaluated to fail or be successful, then punctuation occurs, such that it may be accomplished with re-evaluation considering direction in reacting, as the re-evaluation may be resulted in, or toward, more abandoning the direction (as Focusing fails); keeping the direction (as knowing more); and/or changing the direction (as wanting to know more), where each such direction in reactions may be summarized by a set of rules.

2) What is the Knowing in the Focusing?

Instead of confining what knowing is, let me define here what a sequence of knowledge is (in favor of quantifying, in consideration of flow of such sequences of knowledge, the knowing being processed and/or the more knowing being resulted in the Focusing):

A sequence of knowledge consists in a system of assembled knowledge, which flexibly and fully integrates tables and xml data structures, such that each different part or whole in the system is a unique sequence of knowledge and all the sequences share equal citizenship in the system, as each of the related contents and/or their definers in the system is accessible and its relatives can be viewed, accessed and modified via it.

Such system of assembled knowledge as a pile of any client acts as a personal knowledge base managed by and for the client. Any thing in such pile with any other or with itself can be related and also be the relating one.

3) What is Focusing of use?

It is the Focusing evaluated in consideration of the use, such that the use in growing scales of reactions is evaluated as more and/or as able to become more Personalized Trusted and Efficient.

4) How the focusing of use is to be trusted?

In each machine, let a system of assembled knowledge be, so that all its sequences of knowledge are controlled only by the usage which is trusted by the user of the machine.

5) How the focusing of use is to be efficient and trusted?

Let a token be a data item in a restrictive size, such as of 4 bytes, and in each machine let any token be accessible only to whom it is permitted, be it an individual or a set of such individuals.

Any thing in such pile can become an 'expression', simply by attaching a token to it. For any such token exists an individual definition of 'permitted' for the respective client, considering which the decision about sending or not sending of said token in any specific case will be taken. The security, then, is to be achieved by the level of token being constantly checked for permission before coming via the expressions to the inner relations in the pile.

6) How the focusing of use is to be efficient and trusted in any communication?

Let communication between machines carry only one or more tokens, each may be attached with data aligned around (the token) and let the communication be automated only if it is trusted according to human decisions controlling each of the machines.

7) Why to use the p2pcommunities architecture?

Nowadays, the usual behaviour in internet interaction is such between provider and customer, although the trend goes towards more participation, control and interaction of any client/customer, see wikis, p2p, blogs etc. We are trying to encourage this trend, as for creating independent, but still interrelated, growing and self-organizing communities, based on shared tokens, i.e. shared focus.

8) Active and passive in focusing.

In any focus there is a sense of passive, receiving, and of active, affecting. In the light of the above, the focus of the average internet user is rather a passive one, of a customer towards its provider. The average user does not affect the internet, only consumes it. The approach of p2pcommunities supports the approach, that any user by changing its focus will affect its environment, its community, its internet, so to say.

Looking at the example of news, when are given from one or few source/s, the customer, except of paying money, does not affect the focus of the journalists, so that as a side effect the (community of) journalists develop their own language between themselves, using different tokens than the rest of the world.

One could say, to allow someone to change my focus, I need to trust that one. Thats right. When the journalist invites me passively to her focus, she doesn't ask if she trusts me. It is not the matter, since I will not affect her focus. Inviting for an active focus requires trust and results in trust, because if one invites me to change the one's focus, that is less likely such as spam, I have some reason to trust that one, because that one trusts me. This is of course a generalization, not true for always, but in an active focus I am better suited to check back and to reconsider my trust, due to various reactions in long term. In short, when the communication will match my expectations (of or towards knowing more, or not (any)more), my trust is increased or maintained, otherwise it is decreased.