Data Liquidity and Systems Interoperability
Meta standard for data reusability
Create a polycontext metasymbol, and overcome the fact that standardization does not generalize.
The basic idea is that we can create a header ("metaheader") to bind format and schema specifications to data, and a single polycontext metasymbol (a map that specifies in which context what metasymbol is to be used) to bind it to data, and link them with global namespaces of ontologies, schemas, and user identities. For example, the polycontext metasymbol may be defined by providing a map:
Where, C1...CN are format or language contexts, and S1...SN are metasymbols, and N ∈ ℕ.
For example if we want to introduce a metasymbol in multiple languages and formats, which may be in conflict with the already-defined symbols and reserved words within the languages and formats, we can introduce a polycontext metasymbol with domain in those languages and formats, for example,
Scheme , and codomain with our chosen values for S, for example
#|*|#, etc., and then use it for arbitrary semantic or syntactic purposes.
Universal Finger ☝️
Think of polycontext metasymbol as a universal pointer, that can point to anything, and acquires context-neutral form to go to point and ask questions about the things that monocontext metasymbols cannot. You may also think of polycontext metasymbol as an operator with domain spanning across the data specified in different languages, and thus enables us to talk about or operate on them all at once.
Suppose that we use polycontext metasymbol
* in all contexts, except those where it is a reserved word, and use key-value pairs to provide formats via URLs as their values, with the format (schema) data in machine-human readable key-value specifications. Then here is how it may look as follows.
* key, with value pointing to URL of specifications.
<?_ *=""> attribute at any level, with value pointing to URL of specification.
Specifying the value for the symbol, allows to link schema and data formats directly to the data instances, and have data self-normalizable, and ontologically automatically combine-able, and understand the above record as:
Simpler than JSON-LD
The LinkedData format, such as
JSON-LD, we may have:
"name": "John Lennon",
We can write the same thing using the above metaformat, as:
'fullname': 'John Lennon',
This way, we do not require the standardization of
@id field, because the mapping of the field specifying it can be described in the format specification itself, provided via the polycontext metasymbol. This adds additional degree of freedom for data authors, and less burden for data analysts.
Hypothesis -- the reason of small adoption of semantic web technologies is because of the overcomplexification of metastandards. This simplifies it, deconstrains, and reduces burden to stick with any particular vocabulary.