Re: HM.applications-Translations

[Mark Brownell <gizmotron@earthlink.net>]

> That's even better.  You have loosely defined 
> 
> - user application task (*charting* for Gestalt psychologists)
> - user model (Gestalt psychologist, probably an occasional user)
> - content model(telemetry based on construct library)
> - approach (ideas and singles words that represent ideas, a lexicon 
>   and semantic for the lexicon)
> - the implementation model - extraction into relational DBMS
> - a hint of the implementation approach - text analysis (probably 
>   natural language analyzer based on a limited lexicon) as an 
>   alternative to annotative markup.
> 
> MTML itself is an application of the generic concept of content 
> markup.  In this case, it might better be named Gestalt Markup Language 
> given that calling the Meaningful Text Markup Language is a little
> hyperbolic.   HumanML has to cope with the fact that there are 
> multiple *meaningful* psychological theories one could apply 
> to any given text.
>  

I think that calling it Meaningful Text Markup Language  is 
<less hyperbolic> less hyperbolic </less hyperbolic> than 
might be stated here, given that it has very little restrictions in its use.
The human brain has the capacity to distinguish the meaning of phrases 
and words. I decided on this name because it best fit the form of the 
structured documents that it exists in. The fact that form tends to follow 
function works with this name as well. I chose this name, therefore this 
is its name. That either has meaning or it doesn't. Whether the entire 
world say's that that name is reserved for the great moment of Artificial 
Intelligent, or whether it does that for some other great reason does not 
matter to me. This markup language requires very little in the way of 
additional learning in order to add it to documents that anyone wishes 
to use. To pigeon hole it into a corner for some reason makes me think 
that there is something to gain in coining Meaningful Text Markup 
Language. 

> Once there, it fits perfectly into the HumanML framework as an application 
> of Gestalt theories.  Essentially, this is an hermaneutic analysis 
> of a text based on a Gestalt framework of classification.
> 

Let's see if using it on the US IRS tax code could make better tax payers 
of us all. The purpose of MTML is to attach a human readable handle to an 
author defined fragment of text. Any application purpose imaginable could 
then make use of that fragment. 

> Have you written any use scenarios? The last email was close but 
> use scenarios are typically small, per task, descriptions.
> 

Have you run the application on the internet yet? Did you auto-load the five 
or six diverse documents that illustrate the different possible classifications 
of meaning that are possible with this tool?

This application is in the most basic unspecified lexicon that I could imagine in. 
The user creates there own lexicon of search terms per document loaded.
The interface to MTML is the capacity of the brain to read text, and to determine 
the meaning of that text. The author of a document passes on a set of ideas 
in the form of search items, to facilitate a machine gathering system of any
group's lexicon. I choose to reference borders between the galactic reference 
of the internet, and the semantic reference of RDF in a purpose of passing 
on the authors meaning. The combining of information in this search and 
retrieve tool with the semantic web is only one realized aspect of MTML. This is 
only the first generic tool that I have up my sleeve. 

Best regards,

Mark