HM.Frameworks: Physical Description

[Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga <rkthunga@interposting.com>]

Ultimately, the taxonomies, and the possible attribute values, have to make
sense for a human being (since we are making human frameworks.)

Regarding units of measurement...certainly something human appropriate is
necessary.  To match the initial aim of the HumanMarkup is to represent
human taxonomies.  That is, our schema design and attribute values (at least
INITIALLY) are representing values that a human can process (not necessarily
a computer)...i.e. the schemas are not to be framed for computers to process
"i.e. specific decimal values such as .53", but rather based on human
concepts "exactly" "somewhat similar", a simple rating scale (maximum of 1
to 10), or a human readable measurement system (cm or in)...something a
policeman or social worker would enter in a form, to use a real world
scenario.

However, at a lower level application can certainly translate these into
appropriate "computer" values (for lack of a better term.)

BTW, I have been experimenting with BizTalk mapper recently for example, and
using functoids as represented by code within the XSLT document.  Seems to
make a lot of sense to describe the correlation between different schema
representations within XSLT + code.  These could extract the value found
within a "likeness" indicator, and do a specific explicity transform.

----------
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
rkthunga@humanmarkup.org


----- Original Message -----
From: <s.livingstone@btinternet.com>
To: <humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:01 PM
Subject: RE: HM.Frameworks: Physical Description


I agree that we need some kind of fuzzy logic. However, in certain cases it
would be crazy. It would clearly therefore have to be optional.

I would use it in something like:

<personalInfo>
 <hair Likeness="percent" UpperBound="red" LowerBound="Fair"
LikenessVal="76" />
</personalInfo>

and not in something else like:

<personalInfo>
 <age likeness="exact">123</age>
</personalInfo>

These aren't EXACTLY how i would do it - how the heck do we detemine the
actualy benchmark for physical chracteristics? I guess sometimes it is
relative!!

<personalInfo>
 <hair Likeness="percent" UpperBound="idref to some hair element"
LowerBound="idref to some other hair element" LikenessVal="76" />
</personalInfo>

(actually i just wrote this 4 different ways and can't decide, so i will
just leave it the way it is :) - a lot of work to be done)
But i think some "fuzziness" is required in cases.
Another i would mention happened to me today when I was asked to neter
information on a survey. Most of the questions asked me to rate between 1
and 10 - the same kind of fuziess i guess.

<surveyInfo>
 <Q5 Likeness="point" UpperBound="10" LowerBound="1" LikenessVal="6" />
</surveyInfo>


Anyway, just a thought.

Steven Livingstone,
Author Pro XML 2e and others.
http://www.deltabis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Cagle [mailto:cagle@olywa.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 12:33 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: HM.Frameworks: Physical Description

I'm just responding to a thread on this - the KindaLike is Sean's
terminology <grin/>.

Seriously, all I'm trying to do is look at potential correlative mechanisms
based upon specific relational operators. One potential arena where I can
see something like this in play is in preference mechanisms, which I see as
one specific region in which HumanML has definite applications. As I
mentioned before, in some cases these measures are subjective, though I
suspect there are relatively few areas where a more formal definition of a
given measure couldn't be formulated. Consider color equivalences, for
instance, where two reds may be fairly distinct from one another but is more
alike than green and very much more alike than blue. If I describe someone
as having red hair, for instance, and I want to draw a correlative link to
another person with red hair, the like attribute would not likely be 1.0 (I
have two daughters with red hair, and yet it is obvious looking at them that
one is not the same shade as the others).

These don't have immediate bearing to the HumanML schema itself, only to the
creation of correlative mechanisms between two instances of that schema.  In
that sense, the discussions here are application oriented rather than schema
oriented. However, having said that, I would think that correlative measures
would make a great deal of sense in Public Safety issues, especially as it
brings up another point that has been bothering me for a while. We need to
be concerned about the nature of the measurements involved. Should units be
introduced into the schema itself, and if so, how? Is it more reasonable to
describe a map of units of a given type as a prolog block to any measurement
indicators. For instance, it may be more reasonable to basically describe in
the schema that a person's height measurement is given as being of type
Length, and in the prolog all units of type Length are described as being in
centimeters or inches. This makes it possible to make all measurements
scalars without the ugly necessities of parsing out unit measures from
strings. Note that this may have already been addressed. I'm somewhat backed
up in my reading at the moment.

-- Kurt


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>