Recent developments around @compost and degrowth/hub.degrowth.net have brought about reinstation of a secure GitLab CI runner and an improved GitLab Pages setup.
This is not an attempt to slow down a procedure of moving to Codeberg, but rather an invitation for shared accessibility and accountability. It still leaves us with the known Identity situation about lab.allmende.io and public registration.
A better understanding of the levels of virtualisation involved in reproducing the environments that left us in summer 2021 makes this a little more reliable now.
If it becomes useful to consider that a runner could be used for tests, regular jobs or intermediary Pages builds here and there, please let me know and meanwhile suit yourself in the /admin/runners settings.
As I understand this first link, and the I-P-O diagram, it refers only to the certification process for Digital Public Goods. it shows an abstract view of that process. It is not something general. The process - the P in that diagram - stands for the Digital Public Goods certification process. There is nothing there to model any imaginable kind of I-P-O process, nor a whole graph of such linked together, which is what VF allows. In other words, VF allows to model any complex system of I-P-O graphs, this is just a single, specific I-P-O instance, like any other specific software is.
Or did I get it wrong?
This statement was only about the first link. The rest was just reference.
In the incentives project they write in their readme, that they are basing their work there on thie I-P-O pattern, which is one of the building blocks of VF.
What they depict with it may clearly be only a glimps of what VF is capable, why the congruence is so lucky.
If this is about formally researching the conditions of possibility of the existence of open source in general, as the documentation in the toolkit suggests to me, underlined by the presence of a Standard (note to self: have to look into this), this work can make use of the advanced methods of representing interaction mobilised by VF, and esp. to what Sensorica were doing alongside with their OVNs.
I'm not only seeing links to many other domains here, may they be rather technical, like SBOM, license lineage and crowd-sponsorship platforms at first, but could IMHO potentially extend to an analysis of the political ecology of FLOSS ecosystems at large. Why the UN appear to be a relevant host for having this conversation.
And also, in addition, with UNICEF it's one of the better instantiations of the UN charter chairing this. Maybe our friends at CargONG (Johan Richer) can tell us more about this certainly more international development oriented work.
wow, interesting! :o but.. I see no similarity to VF whatsoever. it is just a certification of digital things, to indicate that they are following best practice. It has nothing to do with modeling an economic system.
Open Supply Hub certainly also have an interesting model for supply chains:
Seems UNICEF are reinventing Value Flows:
These incentives are part of the Digital Public Goods Alliance toolkit.
This is what they consider a Digital Public Good:
All of this is very well specified:
Created by: coopchange
@bhaugen recommended I start an issue for this; I'm currently trying to introduce myself to the vf:work at hand here.
my Qs I previously posted in the link dump for not knowing where to post it. I looked at some of the conversations about introductions to VF #102, ...valueflow/valueflows/tree/intro, #115, and felt it better to start a new issue.
this thread could maybe instead become a conversation about VF landing pages, if that would be worthwhile? I don't know if issues can have their names changed but I am happy to change it to whatever, naturally. honored to be here w/ y'all.
"I think I get "the vocabulary must work at the recipe, planning, and accounting levels." - w/ recipes being templates, planning being the adaptation to context, and accounting being the record of reality? the Process- & Exchange-oriented flow diagrams on the main valueflo.ws page makes sense, but the process-exchange-oriented diagram makes slightly less sense: after the Output Event => Resource, there's an additional "Take Event => Exchange =>" before the flow is essentially the same as the exchange flow... so trying to isolate the exchange piece of the Process-Exchange-oriented flow: Resource => Take Event => Exchange => Resource => Take Event => Exchange => Give Event...
as compared w/ the 'Exchange-oriented flow', which gives Resource => Take Event => Exchange => Give Event...
unless, as I guess I'm imagining, the "..." of the Exchange-oriented flow is that the last Exchange leads to a Resource?"
Will be interesting to see if I can get Shintaro to do some Value Flows modelling, e.g. on hash.ai (their block editor, similar to Notion, will be another thing).
In preparing for doing a general accounting overhaul of Ecobytes and my selves of the last five years, I'm reapproaching to teach myself the basics of accounting, because I never really learned it up until now. So https://plaintextaccounting.org is quite a treasure trove to draw from.
I was already lucky before, when I had converted our GnuCash into hledger and Beancount, and visualised it through https://github.com/adept/hledger-sankey and Fava respectively.
Now digging deeper into the resources sends me help with foundational introductions, e.g. to
and then, where it struck me:
…
Eventually I figured it out: basic accounting is just graph theory. The traditional ways of representing financial information hide that structure astonishingly well, but once I had figured out that it was just a graph, it suddenly all made sense.
I’m a computer scientist, and I think of stuff in graphs all the time. If only someone had explained it like that in the first place! It would have saved me so much confusion. So I want to try to fix that. If you like graphs, then by the time you reach the end of this article, you should know everything you need in order to understand the financial statements for a small company/startup (and even calculate them yourself, in a spreadsheet or programming language of your choice).
It’s really not that hard. Let’s go!
Accounts = Nodes, Transactions = Edges
…
https://martin.kleppmann.com/2011/03/07/accounting-for-computer-scientists.html
Maybe I just needed a Category view on the matter, to explain the domain, its axioms and (trans-)formation rules, thus its grammar to me, but this is just too simple. From SolidBase alone I would never have guessed.
Now I'm looking forward what the meld people are getting at.
Happy to see Michiel in their crowd.
Could Value Flows be used to do regular (double) bookkeeping and accounting, e.g. in the TerminusDB No Code RDF GraphQL environment? #72
Please note that one can respond to individual comments by choosing the
🗨 button to the top right.
This one is from @yala !
This seems related to Value Flows, even though the term Value Streams is already occupied and has quite a distinct meaning already. https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/taking-devsecops-to-the-next-level-with-value-stream-mapping/
But it can also be that they don't know Value Flows just yet ;) Can the Value Stream Mapping idea be, sic, mapped onto Value Flows; how would it look like?
For me it was interesting, as it combines two domains that were previously disparate to each other for me: systems modelling and actual technical interventions in the server/cloud space.
Also there's a promising researcher at HU Berlin who wrote about Commoning and Computation (Shintaro Miyazaki), wo uses agent-based modelling to analyse systematic problems and help recode people's minds for the system change (my synopsis of the talk last friday; blog follows). Value Flows jumped into my mind, because this is the kind of empirics social scientists use these days: simulations. Why not add some semantic sparkles to it, I thought.
I ended up referencing it in the semi-private Hypothes.is annotation group at https://hypothes.is/groups/GP9YLGQN/value-flows
Put interesting links here, for people to read now, or for parking in case we want to look them up later.
I think I just got carried away with the idea around composing processes. After considering it. The plan level is actually where this would make the most sense.
However, to answer the question from @bhaugen about how it would effect the chains of R -> P -> R -> P -> R -> etc., it really wouldn't impact it much. There would essentially be an algebra around composing the Processes which would have a natural transformation to the category of string diagrams. So the processes themselves are independent and have their own chains and higher level Processes would constitute a part of those chains. The higher level Processes would also have their own chains that would abstract the details of the lower level chains.
After thinking about it more, I think that Plans are probably the best candidate for this kind of compositional scheme and not Processes themselves. Especially with what @lynnfoster has told me about the definition of Processes as operational processes.
What I'm thinking about now is separate UIs for different aspects:
@lynnfoster & @bhaugen, the link to my list of papers should be fixed. Let me know if it's still giving you problems and maybe I'll just put it here or on my site.
I moved back to the playspace github to discuss UX specific to that, here. I'll put suggested examples there too.
One other structural note to consider in the discussion: Operational processes are now part of Plans, and a UX could take advantage of that to "zoom out" to display one higher level of composition/nesting, with no data model changes. Additionally, Plans could nest into Scenarios.
Again, some examples would help think about it. I can try to gather an interesting collection.
Another question @adaburrows : Is your thought about having processes within processes about:
My first concern with this idea is, how do the input-process-output flows work? https://write.as/economic-networks/input-process-output-resource-flow-pattern
@adaburrows thanks for the definitions and visuals. I think all our definitions could use improvement as we move towards 1.0, this is good input.
One note on Scenario. The current definition is: "An estimated or analytical logical collection of higher level processes used for budgeting, analysis, plan refinement, etc.". So it can be more than "A collection of processes being considered", although that could be a good use for it too, probably we should get rid of "higher level". I'm also pretty sure there are uses we haven't thought of or run into in this part of the model - it is intended for basically anything that isn't operational and isn't a recipe. So that part of the model is one more likely than others to evolve with more experience. And possibly could be part of where you want to go with composing processes; or not, I don't know?
I've also been playing with making the process a container that holds the inputs and outputs. However, when I draw a process as a container, it feels weird that there's nothing holding it together. It almost feels like some more specific process definition language should be used inside of the processes to specify how they should be carried out and how each resource should be used.
I'd be interested in looking at this with some real examples, whenever you want to go there. For example, I'm not sure what "holding it together" means.
(Side note, not meant to be disagreement. For some minority of use cases, there will be more intensive instructions that go beyond notes. Like the FabCity people are experimenting with creating quite detailed build documentation from the cad design information (IKEA level with pictures, cutouts, etc.). Possibly recipes could be created from some of the same meta information embedded in the cad file, and then plans from the recipes, but the build doc would be what is used by people fabricating and/or assembling something in that case. A different tactic by another set of people doing fab documentation is to do their instructions with their own markdown language, which among other things, can refer to specific resources, iirc.)
Anyhow, I'm interested in where you are going with this, and I think some examples would help me to see what may not be handled well by the Process and Commitment/Intent notes, and by Process defined at a "useful" level (per the inputs and outputs, with flexibility for the rigor needed for the use case).
Also, I have compiled some additional category theory reading over here which is mostly relevant.
403 forbidden (but no rush)