RE: HM.interactions: initial questions

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

As a layer, a human object chooses choices.

Basic Shannon:  "The fundamental problem of 
communication is that of reproducing at one 
point either exactly or approximately a 
message selected at another point.  Frequently 
the messages have meaning; that is they refer 
to or are correlated according to some system 
with certain physical or conceptual entities.  
These semantic messages are irrelevant to the 
engineering problem.  The significant aspect is 
that the actual message is one selected from a 
set of possible messages."

Each layer is selecting messages and possibly 
transforming them for the next layer.  This 
isn't rocket science.  HumanML has to be the 
human layer and for that to work, we deal with 
the kinds of information that humans select 
and put into human channels.  That is why so 
much of the phase 0 work has revolved around 
isolating out the issues of human channels.

The web is just plumbing.  SOAP is just a 
slightly more elaborate RPC for services. 
WSDL describes a service.  UDDI is just
an ad for a service.  The SW is a single 
system for expressing ontological constructs 
to layer over this (really,  a DARPA project 
but that is the W3C choice, not ours).

Reconsider the scenario of the dog, the girl 
and the lamppost.  If she were advertising, 
what would the boy and girl observing them 
see?  How does a hooker advertise services?

The example seems ludicrous but it is real 
and it exemplifies a real problem of a discovery 
based system:  learning to interpret signals, 
symbols and signs in a context (message selection 
for the purpose of interpretation and reacting). 
Gestalt has theories about this.  Cognitive 
psychology has theories about this.  Zen 
has theories about this.  Ralph Nader has 
theories about this.   Could each of these 
take HumanML and express their theory in a 
single system?  

That is the *main issue* of this initiative: 
can one create human objects (HumanML consumers) 
that inform real human or machine choices?

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Brownell [mailto:gizmotron@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 7:15 PM
To: gurun@acc.umu.se; humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: HM.interactions: initial questions


> Mark Brownell wrote:
> > From: Manos Batsis
> > >Although SOAP and/or XML-RPC are very handy as "semi-protocols", I
don't
> > >really find a reason to focus on them while building our framework;
They
> > >are just a distributed computing "API". Essentially, it's just a way of
> > >messaging. Shouldn't we be neutral towards these?
>
> I agree with manos. Don't put to much meaning into the technology. After
> all, it's just a piece of junk put together in a clever way. I respect
> people that understand this, but on the other hand, I think XML would
> have wanished a "long time ago" if it wasn't for all the people that
> _didn't_ get it. Unpredicted usage can be very constructive :-)
>

I see the RDF, server database solution as a workable technology that
could be implemented with existing tools. CGI is just too clunky for what
I would like to get out of it. My own shockwave application has spoiled
me on what I would hope to achieve. I also like the idea of me, sitting on
my butt and waiting for someone else to make it all happen. It is more
that likely that this will happen even if I blow all my remaining brain
cells
on it anyway. I'm going to sit around here and watch the fireworks show.

> > So the bottom line for this idea is to provide the information to a
commonly
> > used rendering machine. Has anyone provided a reasonable selection
> > process that determines what will end up being rendered on the user's
> > machine?
>
> What do you suggest constitutes this selection process? We have had
> discussions about approaches where HumanML could provide input to lower
> level technologies and middleware (EMOTE, HAnim, etc). Myself I have a
> very implementational approach to HumanML. HumanML, no matter how you
> described it, must present a use case where the primary focus is to
> render a noticable result back to the actors. If this will be a simple
> "DOH" or a complex "HMM", I really couldn't say.
>
> My biggest problem with HumanML right now is that it refuses to fit into
> any OOA method I know of :-)
>
> Cheers,
> /Niclas

Selection, that seems to be the primary issue no matter what structuring of
documents,
databases, algorithms, or technologies are used. I propose to create a MTML
tool that
works on as basic a level as I can get it down to. A tool that serves a
purpose of networking
where volunteer efforts are rewarded back to the implementers of the
network. I don't expect
people to jump on my band wagon, yet I'm going to keep developing this thing
because
at this time it seems interesting to me. I just want the RDF, that I will
use, to outlast this
project
if it turns out to be a dead end. I'm not being creative for the sake of a
HumanML. I'm way
more interested in creating a SW that works. HumanML offers some interesting
values to
a SW, I have learned. So I'm going to see if I can create an input layer
that addresses this
form of semantics. Undoubtedly I'll spin off some interesting code in the
process. So that
seems worth it.

Best regards,

Mark


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