The original idea for ontological commoning grew out of experience with the Collaborative Technology Alliance and my experience in technical interoperability standardization, originally in the area of electronic portfolios. This led to the initial ideas published 2023-02-22 and the ontological commoning proposal to the CTA around the same time.

Many years earlier, my PhD research in cognitive science recognised that people in general, when engaged in any ongoing complex situation or task, will create their own ways of dealing with that situation. These patterns of behaviour go along with systems of belief, and what can be called personal ontology — the way in which any individual sees reality.

In the world of technology, an entrepreneurial spirit may see an opportunity that can be addressed though some kind of technical service, platform, or “app”. This would seem just as true of technology in a social entrepreneurial spirit as in a commercial one. As the opportunities in the world are many, varied, and complex, so too are the solutions that are first imagined, then built as software.

But if there is no communication, coordination or collaboration, what happens is that the ontologies inherent in the software design, as well as the actual tasks that are addressed, are quite different. My most direct experience of this was for tools in the space of personal development and electronic portfolios, but I quickly came to see that this is a completely general phenomenon in information technologies.

Since 2023, I have been extending the concept of ontological commoning beyond technical interoperability, to any complex situation of people being or working together. Social entrepreneurs may have different approaches outside the technological domain, and we can imagine the same ontological commoning approach applying there as well. I tried this out at the May meeting of the Imaginary Institute in Brussels, and this revealed some considerations that needed attention, which I am trying to document here below.

The original idea was, and still is, to help technical entrepreneurs who want to create good services and technical systems to establish the kind of common ground that is needed for technical interoperability; which in turn helps us all be more effective, though collaborative specialisation. However, there are not many people in this class. The principles are similar for other fields, but this needs more explanation.

Imagine some activists sharing a common goal, but differing substantially in their strategy or tactics for achieving that goal. In this case, they may well have different narratives, stories, or “theories of change”. We can apply the same ontological commoning approach, though we won't have the help of being able to look at an explicit technological ontology from the software design. More care and insight will be needed to evoke the ontologies.

If the belief systems appear to be similar, the exercise won't look as surprising, but it still may be valuable to check that the underlying ontologies can actually be clearly mapped. Even if there is no technology already planned to help with the activism, nevertheless if different movements or factions wish to share any information between them, it is very helpful to check the ontologies sooner rather than later.

Bioregional knowledge commons work is something that is under active consideration at the time of writing. Going through these exercises may or may not reveal differences of ontology. We can imagine that people concerned with bioregions will have a good amount of shared narrative and belief systems, and if this is the case then the exercise may be seen as unexciting — it may best be seen as a due diligence exercise. However, if some ontological divergence is discovered, then it will be very valuable in the effort to bring together those working in a bioregional frame.

It is not designed for situations where there is already a lot of common ground between people. It may still be an interesting exercise, but on the other hand there may be a feeling of “so what?” and a sense that this method is unnecessary. If people's belief systems are already aligned, the stories they tell are likely to be accepted immediately as just another view on the same reality; just another of the many stories that can be told from within the same culture and world view.

To be effective with ontological commoning, as well as having some shared aim, goal, or vision, we need to have enough difference of opinion or approach. However in a general meeting of any network, particularly when people don't know each other, there is a background assumption and social pressure towards conformity and being agreeable. It may be a challenge to get anyone to come out with a view that is contrary to the apparent norm.

One way round that would be to pretend to role play. If we ask “has anyone come across someone who doesn't agree on that?” about an approach, a belief, as strategy, a worldview, etc., we can go on to ask “does anyone know someone well enough to roleplay that person?” This allows people to play a role which might actually be close to their own views, with plausible denial that they actually hold those views … “I was only playing a role”. That might make it easier to express the difference of opinion.

• 90-minute exercise

• ontological commoning
• Ontological Commoning index