Whatever standards is a big formality despite not having popularity

The word standard stands for a more clearly proposed something, for it trying to more easily reach the acceptance of it from others as a valid communication channel. Standard is yet another aesthetical trick to concentrate values in terms, as the word «concept» is to the word «word». Resuming: A proposition raised to the upper level of a so called standard has reached an inner consensus that wants to be and could more easily be further populated.

There is a standard for what is formal at math and logic very much rooted in the ABuse of the excluded middle principle (see more below and in the links in the overview above). Formality itself may begin at symbols, and even further backwards at interpretational codes for those, whatever the specie. We can try to normalize formalities, but they are and will always be one of the biggest misteries of how we humans keep doing that…

Formality tends to very much confused with a consensus popularity and a centralizing effort of it. For example, within a standard for a p2p network there is a centralized consensus (the standard) that focuses – gives value to decentralizative operations (the bottom up federating). In the other way, a standard could also propose more dependency from it (vendor lock in, man in the middle), so operations with it will be more centralized by design. Centralizations somewhat facilitate top down analitics which can be also very useful for the planning of the bottom up operations to be featured within (i.e. no need to standarize categories for xyz because a topdown analiser could do it better, etc), but when there is too much centralization there are also more systems flaws with their bottlenecks and points of failure.

Formality is finally a recomended consensus for a top down schema, where anything out of it and or even what we initially input from the bottom up at it could be considered as informal. The more populated (popular…) a system is, the more formal it could look like to anyone. But mind that standard-centralization-consensus of any formality is only a «recommended look like approach«, that the more you want to impose it to others, the easier it can get into the appeal to majority and or authorithy and naturalistic fallacies and their bottlenecks and failure points.

«Key» (value) is a centralising formality-consensus proposal

For example, we can say a keypair is key because most people mostly associate them (i.e. Time with Space), but if someone prefers to Associate Time mainly with Clock, such pair is his-her keypair anyway, despite that being informal at the eyes of a massier consensus.

Popular Top Down Consensus and Natural Law

…See more about this, here and here

Bictiopedia (in)formalities

(In)formality is in the eye of the beholder…

Bictiopedia tries to formalize bipoles definitions and has a prefered bipolar set of bipoles relations. Thessaurus relate words with the same categories and bictiopedia focuses further on the relations by:

1. Sintactically merging the related words

2. Adding further main (centralized – Top Down analitical ease) & customizable (decentralized – Bottom Up extension) degrees (other categories) to the relations between words.

What is «key» within bictiopedia are not what the people has more massively said about what is the more related word of another or else category, what is more mainly «key» is to allow the data addings and pools to be freely federated from down to up. Secondarily, key would be its standard ontologies ranks and or the biases at initial prototypes. This is actually an edge of the scope under dispute. For example, this demonstrations at the what & how page could either be done at bictiopedia domain or at flove.org (more personal and bloatable because it’s a testing propotype) one, depending how much we would like to offer a lighter or more bloated centralization of the standard and the platform services. I mean, bictiopedia.org could host a centralized software and go like the wikipedia way, but that should be a transitory strategy, because it should be developing a way and spaces for easy standards fork and whatever p2p applications made out with it.

So you see, this centralization of standards are very subjected to be reviewed (they are dynamic), so if you want to find the more centralized bits of them, you have to look at the project values itself (etiologies), andbut since them also rely in the values of the people at the backstage that has editorial rights for updating the standard of this brand, so probably have to look for the sourcier bits from the formality at the authorship page, where you will find a quite informal guy outstanding there….

This is not just ranty writing for trolling you and myself, this same bottleneck about what is key or valueable is more clearly happening at dictionaries themselves and also at wikipedia itself (see more in chapters below), and more as more popularted is their data and centralized their consensus mechanisms.