A short narrative about the structure of the Clique Space(TM) "component" mechanism is disclosed here.
******
Components are pieces of information that an Agent Device knows about.
Components are stored in an Agent Device's component container.
Components must implement methods which are called when added to and removed from the Agent Device's component container. These call-backs give the component implementations the opportunity to manage their lifecycle.
Cliques, Elements, Clique Spaces, and data representing external device state when represented in Clique Space, are all components. Cliques, Elements and Clique Spaces comprise state information relevant to Agent Devices - an Agent Device is merely a device which, through one or more Clique Spaces, is modelled in terms of the individual who possesses it as one or more Participants. Each Participant is associated to precisely one Clique and one Clique Space.
An observable component is a component to which an observer Clique can be assigned.
An observer Clique is a Clique that represents all Agent Devices which have a copy of a given observable component.
No observer Clique exists if only one Agent Device has a copy of the given component.
All components except the Clique and its observer Clique subtype are observable.
A communicable component is a component which can be transmitted by one Agent Device and received by another over a synapse.
All observable components except the Sovereign and the Sovereign's Clique Space are communicable.
******
One of the very interesting phenomena about this mechanism is enabled in what is given in the final point of the above narrative: the Sovereign (specifically, the Sovereign's identifier) is known only to those Agent Devices in which the individual's presence is manifest. The Sovereign, and its Clique Space cannot be disclosed even between Agent Devices in which the individual's presence is manifest. The concept of an individual's sovereignty is so secret that Agent Devices which manifest the same individual presence cannot even communicate this information amongst themselves.
Why would a collection of Agent Devices (an Agent Collaboration) have anything to tell each other when they know who they are? A nervous system that makes up an individual has nothing of substance to share among its member neurons about the individual manifest by this membership; each individual member neuron already knows the individual it helps manifest by virtue of the fact that each member neuron possesses the secret which allows the individual to exist. This piece of information does not need to be communicated.
Instead, the individual manifest by an Agent Collaboration governed by a common Sovereign must be the only individual who knows the identifier of their own Sovereign. This identifier, after all, identifies the scope of their own existence. An individual may connect to their own Sovereign's Clique Space only if they know the value of their Sovereign's identifier. Hence, an individual would be well-placed never to allow another individual to know the value of their Sovereign's identifier; the consequences to such an individual's existence as a sovereign entity could be acutely bad.
On the flip side, the value of the Sovereign's identifier could be used as a private part to a key pair. An individual may still readily be identified as the presence manifest through different Connections, Affiliations or Identities if the individual wishes to disclose a digital signature with these Elements.
Hence, the value of the Sovereign's identifier (also the name of the Sovereign's Clique Space in my implementation) is a property which identifies an individual to themselves; a singular property of absolute value to the individual.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Another Clique Space(TM) usage scenario.
Say, I and two others are going out to have a dinner at a restaurant. The occasion is that it is a mother's day dinner out, and I am taking my mother (one of two other people) out to dinner. I am paying for her dinner, but the other individual is paying for their own meal.
Say, we all live in a world where Clique Space is commonplace. What, you might wonder, does this mean? At the most abstract level, this means that you possess one or more Agent Devices and you use your Agent Devices to cooperate with Agent Devices of other people in Cliques which form, grow, shrink, and disband within and between administrative domains called Clique Spaces. Agent Devices are devices like any other and have a physical manifestation like phones, cars, and computers. Other things like credit cards, Facebook pages, twitter accounts, bank accounts, and other abstract entities having a largely conceptual existence can be considered devices in Clique Space if they can exchange state information with one or more Agent Devices.
Now, back to the restaurant example, myself and the other two co-diners walk into the restaurant and meet the waiter. Before we are ushered to our table, the waiter verifies with us who is in our Clique, and who the Clique's Owner will be. I say I will be the Clique's Owner as I know who will be paying for who's meal; the waiter, an individual who has activated their "waiter" Affiliation through a selected Identity, gives me the Identity through which they have done this. I possess relevant Identities of my co-diners, and I use all Identities to form the Clique that I will own.
This Clique lasts for the duration of our meal. The restaurant uses the information in their account and in the service record of our waiter. I use the Clique to assert that I will pay for myself and my mother. The third diner accepts the condition that they pay for their own meal or the Clique wouldn't have been able to form. The waiter has joined my Clique because the Clique I have formed accepts that payment will be automatically deducted from each diner's account into the restaurant's account sufficient to pay the bill of service.
Each Participant has the opportunity to persist their individual Clique Space activity; interactions with others constitute this activity, and so each Participant has the opportunity to keep a record of this Clique in case there is any contention as to the bill, the proportion of the bill payed by each diner, the service offered by the waiter, or the activity recorded against other media like the bank's transaction system.
Each Participant except my mother disclosed their bank's transaction facility as a medium in this Clique. When the Clique formed, the devices that compose each Participant's transaction facility were nominated in the relevant Participant as Connections - activated against the relevant Identities by the individuals who hold the Identities (myself, the waiter, my mother, and the third diner) to be expressed in the corresponding Participant. Again, the Clique cannot form if the media requirements set by the Clique's Owner candidate (my candidate Participant) are not met by all other candidate Participants.
Hence, the Clique will only form if the medium and all constraints regarding the usage of this medium are met by all candidate Participants. Actual Participant instances will only be instantiated when constraint affinity can be met, and can only exist while ever constraint affinity can continue to be met.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Determination of the Clique's medium.
Right now, I feel that I can direct my attention toward some very central issues of the Clique Space(TM) purpose.
The light of my enquiry appears to shine almost squarely on the issue of determining the medium which every Participant in a specific Clique will have. This blog entry therefore is some deliberation over the considerations central to this mechanism, and some implications on other mechanisms incident by this mechanism.
Every candidate Participant supplies a collection of Connections which represent devices underlying a given Participant if it were created. Each candidate supplies a set of one or more Connections which have been activated against an Identity, also given in the candidate. The Clique's medium is determined primarily by the candidate which is nominated as the Owner Participant.
The Owner's medium is determined by iterating through the Owner candidate's given set of Connections. For each Connection, the associated Media Profile hierarchy is flattened, and returned as a set of Media Profiles. Each of these iterations progressively builds a baseline medium; each iteration is the logical union between the Media Profile name correspondence from the Connection of the given iteration with the set which has been built in previous iterations. One of the Owner candidates connections is nominated as the Participant's Connection: it is the Connection on the device spine which will yield the type of Participant desired; the Media Profile, the Connection, and the hypothetical Participant are collectively known as the device's spine. Each of these elements extends the respective abstract Clique Space's element class declaration.
The other member candidates describe other sets of Connections from the same or other identities through which a similar process of building a set of Media Profiles will happen. Each member contributes to determining the Clique's medium: at the end of determining the medium for each member, the Owner's medium is trimmed by finding the logical intersection between the Owner's medium and the given member. This is done progressively until all members have been iterated through.
The final medium obtained in this process is the maximum degree of functionality common to all candidates which can be contained by the candidate Owner Participant. The final consideration regarding the medium is to determine whether the given medium will be accepted by the spinal Connection. The Clique cannot form if any Media Profile present in the candidate medium is not present in the spinal medium. The spinal medium is found by flattening the hierarchy of the given spine's Media Profile as it is for any of the candidates' media.
Each member Participant is assigned its own version of the Owner's medium. This is because medium equivalence is determined by the correspondence between the name of the Owner's and member's Media Profile name. Hence, the name of the Media Profile is sufficient to determine equivalence and this means that a member can specify a name-equivalent Media Profile from a different Clique Space. The use of name-equivalent, but different Media Profile instances for different candidates may become a consideration in determining the Clique's mode when determining whether a Clique can form.
In some ways, the Clique's mode is very similar to its medium, but considerations regarding the Clique's mode depend on consensus between all the Clique's members; not primarily on the Owner's functional capacity.
Calculating the mode is determined by marrying all the Limiting Constraints specified by a given candidate to the Enabling Constraints of the derived medium, and also evaluating whether all candidates share Limiting Constraint affinity; the Clique cannot form if one or more members have properties which contradict the intentions of others.
A more algorithmic explanation around determining the Clique's mode will be covered in a later blog entry. :)
The light of my enquiry appears to shine almost squarely on the issue of determining the medium which every Participant in a specific Clique will have. This blog entry therefore is some deliberation over the considerations central to this mechanism, and some implications on other mechanisms incident by this mechanism.
Every candidate Participant supplies a collection of Connections which represent devices underlying a given Participant if it were created. Each candidate supplies a set of one or more Connections which have been activated against an Identity, also given in the candidate. The Clique's medium is determined primarily by the candidate which is nominated as the Owner Participant.
The Owner's medium is determined by iterating through the Owner candidate's given set of Connections. For each Connection, the associated Media Profile hierarchy is flattened, and returned as a set of Media Profiles. Each of these iterations progressively builds a baseline medium; each iteration is the logical union between the Media Profile name correspondence from the Connection of the given iteration with the set which has been built in previous iterations. One of the Owner candidates connections is nominated as the Participant's Connection: it is the Connection on the device spine which will yield the type of Participant desired; the Media Profile, the Connection, and the hypothetical Participant are collectively known as the device's spine. Each of these elements extends the respective abstract Clique Space's element class declaration.
The other member candidates describe other sets of Connections from the same or other identities through which a similar process of building a set of Media Profiles will happen. Each member contributes to determining the Clique's medium: at the end of determining the medium for each member, the Owner's medium is trimmed by finding the logical intersection between the Owner's medium and the given member. This is done progressively until all members have been iterated through.
The final medium obtained in this process is the maximum degree of functionality common to all candidates which can be contained by the candidate Owner Participant. The final consideration regarding the medium is to determine whether the given medium will be accepted by the spinal Connection. The Clique cannot form if any Media Profile present in the candidate medium is not present in the spinal medium. The spinal medium is found by flattening the hierarchy of the given spine's Media Profile as it is for any of the candidates' media.
Each member Participant is assigned its own version of the Owner's medium. This is because medium equivalence is determined by the correspondence between the name of the Owner's and member's Media Profile name. Hence, the name of the Media Profile is sufficient to determine equivalence and this means that a member can specify a name-equivalent Media Profile from a different Clique Space. The use of name-equivalent, but different Media Profile instances for different candidates may become a consideration in determining the Clique's mode when determining whether a Clique can form.
In some ways, the Clique's mode is very similar to its medium, but considerations regarding the Clique's mode depend on consensus between all the Clique's members; not primarily on the Owner's functional capacity.
Calculating the mode is determined by marrying all the Limiting Constraints specified by a given candidate to the Enabling Constraints of the derived medium, and also evaluating whether all candidates share Limiting Constraint affinity; the Clique cannot form if one or more members have properties which contradict the intentions of others.
A more algorithmic explanation around determining the Clique's mode will be covered in a later blog entry. :)
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Something is sitting in my head.
I've got something in my head. I've been working on it in there since last Monday, and it'll have to remain in there until I file and serve my submissions in an application IBM's legal counsel have made in my case to have it struck out. Too bad there perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps I'll know on 19 April.
Back to my head and to the things therein.
I'm looking at what I perceive to be a solution that revisits deliberations around the same subject matter given in this entry in such a way that draws on the inherent abstract nature of the core data model. What is in my head is promising a lot.
In order to understand what is in my head, one needs to understand how every piece of information an Agent Device knows of (everything except Cliques) must be expressible as a component (well, more correctly, a transmissible component) before it can be propagated to other Agent Devices or projected to other V/PM-enabled devices. All components except the Sovereign's Clique Space are transmissible, and all transmissible components except the "observer" Participant are observable. Identifiers are not components, but do have a method named asQuantum that accepts no parameters.
The asQuantum method is also declared in the transmissible component interface so these type of components can be represented as a serialisable quantum which can be propagated or projected or persisted. All Elements implement the transmissible component interface, and delegate to the enclosed identifier's asQuantum method in the corresponding Element's asQuantum method.
The lovely observation my head has captured about the third category of component (the observable transmissible component) described above is that components of this type are indeed "observable". That is, these type of components have an observer - an "observer" Clique composed entirely of "observer" Participants. This Clique registers all devices (whether Agent Devices or any V/PM device - collectively known as "observer" devices) that are interested in a particular "observable transmissible" component.
I can't wait to start work on this. I reckon this mechanism is the final key to a demonstrable prototype. The thing about this mechanism is that it (or the something that truly has to be implemented) has been in my head since mid-2004. It is only now, however, that the implementation of everything else had to be done before I was sufficiently prepared to investigate this observer mechanism.
Maybe I'm just a dickhead. Eureka!
Back to my head and to the things therein.
I'm looking at what I perceive to be a solution that revisits deliberations around the same subject matter given in this entry in such a way that draws on the inherent abstract nature of the core data model. What is in my head is promising a lot.
In order to understand what is in my head, one needs to understand how every piece of information an Agent Device knows of (everything except Cliques) must be expressible as a component (well, more correctly, a transmissible component) before it can be propagated to other Agent Devices or projected to other V/PM-enabled devices. All components except the Sovereign's Clique Space are transmissible, and all transmissible components except the "observer" Participant are observable. Identifiers are not components, but do have a method named asQuantum that accepts no parameters.
The asQuantum method is also declared in the transmissible component interface so these type of components can be represented as a serialisable quantum which can be propagated or projected or persisted. All Elements implement the transmissible component interface, and delegate to the enclosed identifier's asQuantum method in the corresponding Element's asQuantum method.
The lovely observation my head has captured about the third category of component (the observable transmissible component) described above is that components of this type are indeed "observable". That is, these type of components have an observer - an "observer" Clique composed entirely of "observer" Participants. This Clique registers all devices (whether Agent Devices or any V/PM device - collectively known as "observer" devices) that are interested in a particular "observable transmissible" component.
I can't wait to start work on this. I reckon this mechanism is the final key to a demonstrable prototype. The thing about this mechanism is that it (or the something that truly has to be implemented) has been in my head since mid-2004. It is only now, however, that the implementation of everything else had to be done before I was sufficiently prepared to investigate this observer mechanism.
Maybe I'm just a dickhead. Eureka!
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Another quick and dirty Clique Space(TM) description.
I wrote the following in a letter to someone, and I think it does a good job at giving the reader a basic understanding of my concept. The description is very quick, and, unlike this one, perhaps forsakes a lot of detail in an attempt to keep it within reach of the reader's attention. Here it is...
********
I'll give you a run-down about what Clique Space is supposed to be. A Clique Space is a cluster of Agent Devices. Agent Devices talk to each other by opening channels - forming logical synapses - between themselves. An Agent Device can accept connections to different external devices depending on whether the Agent Device can support the medium that the external device uses. Any device at all, so long as it can exchange state information with another device, is a candidate for connecting to an Agent Device.
Every device is a device in Clique Space. This includes Agent Devices; they're nothing special in terms of what Clique Space is supposed to model. At any instant in time, any device that is collaborating with one or more other devices is modeled in Clique Space as a Participant in a Clique. A Clique can therefore have two or more member participants. One participant is the Clique's owner.
This is what I think is going on in real time in our brains (neurons form Cliques which grow, shrink and disband and move like pseudopods throughout one's whole nervous system) and my Clique Space hypothesis, if I can prove that it at least works, may go on to show how one can get devices (or, rather, clusters of devices) to behave like people [10 April 2013 edit: who are really just clusters of devices otherwise known as cells]). I think the Agent Device is a synthetic equivalent of a neuron; and will demonstrate the logical necessity of the neuron, the synapse, the neurotransmitter, and various other features of biological nervous systems we know exist.
********
Whatever description I could put in writing, I don't think I could cover the concept as comprehensively as I could if I disclosed the code. Yet, so far, the code I have is incomplete, and so the code does not even comprehensively cover the concept as it exists in my mind. Maybe sometime, I'll be able to present an implementation, and therefore prove the concept works.
********
I'll give you a run-down about what Clique Space is supposed to be. A Clique Space is a cluster of Agent Devices. Agent Devices talk to each other by opening channels - forming logical synapses - between themselves. An Agent Device can accept connections to different external devices depending on whether the Agent Device can support the medium that the external device uses. Any device at all, so long as it can exchange state information with another device, is a candidate for connecting to an Agent Device.
Every device is a device in Clique Space. This includes Agent Devices; they're nothing special in terms of what Clique Space is supposed to model. At any instant in time, any device that is collaborating with one or more other devices is modeled in Clique Space as a Participant in a Clique. A Clique can therefore have two or more member participants. One participant is the Clique's owner.
This is what I think is going on in real time in our brains (neurons form Cliques which grow, shrink and disband and move like pseudopods throughout one's whole nervous system) and my Clique Space hypothesis, if I can prove that it at least works, may go on to show how one can get devices (or, rather, clusters of devices) to behave like people [10 April 2013 edit: who are really just clusters of devices otherwise known as cells]). I think the Agent Device is a synthetic equivalent of a neuron; and will demonstrate the logical necessity of the neuron, the synapse, the neurotransmitter, and various other features of biological nervous systems we know exist.
********
Whatever description I could put in writing, I don't think I could cover the concept as comprehensively as I could if I disclosed the code. Yet, so far, the code I have is incomplete, and so the code does not even comprehensively cover the concept as it exists in my mind. Maybe sometime, I'll be able to present an implementation, and therefore prove the concept works.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Telework and CEO stupidity.
Clique Space(TM) came about because I wanted a system that informed others of my real-time activity over anything that can connect to and exchange information with a Clique Space. However, in this short blog entry, I will talk of my frustrations - frustrations which mothered my invention. I'm going to offer a brief opinion on how Yahoo's chief executive made a strategic decision last week that bordered on insane for its lack of forethought.
Technology created to realise of a mode of work that society has long desired, exists in a society that levels blame at the feet of this mode whenever things unrelated to it need to be fixed. The fact that an edict can come down to rescind a telework condition from employees, as though it were a light switch that is tuned on and off at the whims of a micromanager looking for something other than management philosophy to demonise, only underscores the blatant wanton stupidity of some who have been selected into executive positions.
Someday, I hope telework will become a condition that is not subject to the whims of micromanaging idiots. Maybe someday, and organisation called The Clique Space Organisation will provide a sanctuary for development teams to produce quality software without a CEO who wants to blame flagging revenues and market share on the fuzzy notion that telework isn't "what is right for [The Clique Space Organisation] right now".
Employees at Yahoo who find their telework restored can only look forward to the privilege being removed again whenever the CEO wants to be seen to be addressing another unrelated problem. Fix the real cause of your company's problem Marissa Mayer; it sure as hell isn't telework.
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York city is reported to have said that telework is “one of the dumber ideas I’ve ever heard.”. I think that you, Mr Bloomberg, are an anachronism waiting for time to wash away.
Technology created to realise of a mode of work that society has long desired, exists in a society that levels blame at the feet of this mode whenever things unrelated to it need to be fixed. The fact that an edict can come down to rescind a telework condition from employees, as though it were a light switch that is tuned on and off at the whims of a micromanager looking for something other than management philosophy to demonise, only underscores the blatant wanton stupidity of some who have been selected into executive positions.
Someday, I hope telework will become a condition that is not subject to the whims of micromanaging idiots. Maybe someday, and organisation called The Clique Space Organisation will provide a sanctuary for development teams to produce quality software without a CEO who wants to blame flagging revenues and market share on the fuzzy notion that telework isn't "what is right for [The Clique Space Organisation] right now".
Employees at Yahoo who find their telework restored can only look forward to the privilege being removed again whenever the CEO wants to be seen to be addressing another unrelated problem. Fix the real cause of your company's problem Marissa Mayer; it sure as hell isn't telework.
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York city is reported to have said that telework is “one of the dumber ideas I’ve ever heard.”. I think that you, Mr Bloomberg, are an anachronism waiting for time to wash away.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Two more proprietary claims.
In addition to these claims, I make the following in relation to terms used in Clique Space(TM).
- The Clique Space Sovereign or the term "Sovereign" as it would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept.
- The Clique Space Mode Profile or the term "Mode Profile" as it would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)