RE: A Library of Taxonomies [was Brass Tacks #2]

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Briefly, I concur with Len. We have always, I believe, expected to
see a whole collection of XML Schemata, and I have thought, (maybe
wrongly?) that the RDF Schemata would be the collectors of the
collections. And I have thought of the Schemata themselves as the
Modules to which we have been referring, with each Module having a
place in the overall Taxonomy.

In that sense we have a lot of ground to cover and area to fill in.
No shortage of tasks.

Ciao,
Rex


At 11:46 AM -0500 8/27/01, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I concur.  Right now, we only have a few use cases. 
>I am not looking for application code, but the
>properties that an application needs.  
>
>The EMOTE example is revealing in that it uses a specific
>set of parameters to feed the engine and these
>are based on a high level metaphorical description
>of movement.  This *metaphorical* aspect is what
>enables the observer to take observations and put
>them into the system at a level which the human
>observer can work with well.  When looking at the
>psychological theories, one sees a similar metaphorical
>aspect:  the observer is seldom actually measuring,
>but filling in forms based on their estimates of
>how the observation matches the metaphorical properties.
>These are provided to the engine which then renders
>the model based on the inputs.
>
>One might inquire what test is used to determine when a
>model (the observation metaphor) is getting reasonable
>results.  Albeck could tell us how EMOTE is tested
>for 'reasonableness' but I suspect it is feedback
>by observation.  Still, **the requirement to create a
>metaphor whose qualities make it easier to observe
>and/or record information that produces a reasonable
>rendering seems to be the best and most useful test
>for a HumanML candidate with the proviso that the
>candidate may work itself by transformation to a
>language such as EMOTE where possible.**
>
>Some use cases can result in languages that are reusable
>because the metaphor of the language can be applied and
>well understood in what otherwise seem to be different
>domains.  Scene/actor/speech metaphors are used for
>creating plays/movies etc and also applied to user
>interface design use cases (See Richard Due, et al).
>It is simply a widely applied metaphor for communicating
>systems.  What would HumanML contribute to differentiate
>these uses?  Again, I return to an earlier post from
>phase 0 on what does it mean to be human, then
>what does it mean to be a human communicating in a
>context.   Perhaps we need a synopsis of each
>of the domains we looked at thus far to precisely
>define what they contribute.
>
>It has never occurred to me that we would create a
>single unifying schema.  It seems more likely that
>we would create and refine by iteration multiple
>descriptions and types and try to apply these as
>you say to the application languages.    A set of
>URNs are one way to create families or simply,
>mark out the domains.  It is a tool, though, not a
>solution per se. 
>
>
>Len
>http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
>
>Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
>Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
>
<snip>
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request