RE: Profiling in the News: Was: RE: Taxonomies, URN's etc..

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

My theory:  

She will look at your face and eyes to see 
where you are looking (channel), then look 
where you are looking (proxemic).  She 
will see two possible candidates.  She 
has an episodic context that she 
selects based on your past behavior 
that eliminates the Dog:dog.  Her 
reply is based on the conjunction 
of her (emotional) reaction to her 
interpretation of the statement and 
the emotional reaction is based on 
her past history and the (culture) 
she is a part of that considers 
calling a woman a dog an (insult:symbol) 
She counters with beautiful because 
she has a goal and it is now up to 
you to figure out what it is. If she 
slaps you (haptic) try again.

The whole exchange is tropic.  We 
can go deeper but that is enough 
and we would need a more detailed 
schema for that (symbol, sign, and 
signal aren't adequate for the 
linguistic modules).

Before we get to how we represent 
the domains that create the context 
of communication, we name the domains. 
We named them in the phase 0 work 
and we documented them and provided a 
definition in the schema.   To evaluate 
these mind game scenarios (these are 
scenarios), we should first try to 
apply the schema types and document 
the scenario as a representation. 

We will find there are multiple theories 
about the scenario that can answer the 
question *in terms of the theory*.   
The test is to see if the 
domains we have selected are adequate for 
these and if not, what else 
is needed.  Modularity begins to emerge 
from that.  

HumanML is never ever *done*.  Someone 
will always be tinkering with the kit.


Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@mysterylights.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:55 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Rex Brooks
Cc: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: Profiling in the News: Was: RE: Taxonomies, URN's etc..


> Put a dog and a girl next to the lamppost and repeat.
> That gives the problem more illumination power.

No, that comes from the lamppost, surely?

> Hint: first she has to know where you are looking
> so she will test the space of objects.

O.K. So if there were two lampposts, and three dogs and girls near each
one, then you'd have to attach additional proxemic (the one on the left) or
qualifying (the lamppost with the white bulb) characterisitics in order to
narrow it down so that one could communicate properly. It's just trying to
gague the smallest possible context in which a sentence will not be
misinterpreted, to some degree of satisfaction.

> Isolate in order what is needed for the context.

Hey, I just said that.

> [...] (she won't evaluate the universe, she won't try to work
> out the existential dilemmas of doggyness,

She might do. But it's probably more likely that she'd assume that I have
the same connotations of "doggyness" as her, and so just use the simple
label "dog/lamppost-attracted-object" to refer to them.

> and she does know your sense of humor because after
> all, she is YourGirlfriend).

Poor lass.

> Regardless of how you represent it (subject, object, predicate)
> or (name, subname, value), the communication occurs in a
> context that has multiple sets of properties and you have to
> figure out if there is an invariant that selects the object(s) so you
> can then evaluate the statement, [...]

Yeah, but we do this on a sub-conscious level, otherwise it would be
absurd. You'd have to debate, with yourself, the nature of every object in
your frame of reference (including yourself), and you'd end up in a corner
rocking back and forth and crying. Is that what HumanMarkup is trying to
do; bring the contextual information out into the open so that people from
wider audiences can evaluate the situation? In that case, it's going to be
difficult for people to qualify that information, because they're used to
just doing it intuitively.

I wonder if HumanML would have helped Mr. Jones, at all?

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .