Locking properties on agreement

[jokroese]

Related to #6, if the ontology allows for multiple perspectives, we might also want to allow that mutual agreement is made on a piece of information. In this case, we would want to 'lock' that information. How would this work at the ontology level?

[valevo]

I can very well imagine that Nanopublications could also be of help here, either because Nanopublications itself has something in this vein already built in or if we leverage some part of it to enable that (e.g. by enabling multiple users to make an assertion together, thereby signing their shared agreement).

the latter makes me think of democratic processes where, in a very similar way, multiple parties have to come together, (eventually) agree on something and (importantly) make sure to lock that agreement, so no-one can arbitrarily opt out (e.g. by codification in a law, people have even speculatively started using blockchains for this). so looking towards that branch of political science could be useful.

either way, and in the same way that Nanopulications deals with this, it seems to me an advantage that we treat everything as a subjective and partial statement (i.e. there are no facts or binary hierarchies of truthiness).

[valevo]

would locking a statement be useful so that e.g. the discussion can move on from it, that it could be used in a discussion about other aspects of heritage (potentially with other parties), etc? I'm wondering about a usage-oriented why of locking information

[valevo]

and finally, the LocalContexts Knowledge Labels contain (among others) a label that says "Community Verified" about information. I've seen them used for basically this use case, so that communities can communicate to the rest of the world that they assert information (because they have agreed on it internally). I don't think that the underlying democratic process is a part of this label though, so the label is only there to indicate the outcome