"Dynamic schemas" is the way I am capturing this thread...representing
different perspectives based on established patterns.
Here is an instance of a perspective (i.e. authority) 'module'
I came up with-- for lack of a better word at this stage.
These can describe each XML Schema. RDF is used to annotate XML
documents, but has it also been used for annotating XML Schemas
themselves? I still have some past threads and reference to
study regarding RDF related to HumanML, but this is a question that now
pops up for me.
The 'bias' factor has to made explicit at the onset.
<perspective type="??"
date="09.02.2001" extrapolation_type="direct inquiry" />
<individual>Bill
Jacobs</individual>
<individual>Representative John Billy</individual>
<individual>Senator Joe Whiter</individual>
<group>US
State Dept</group>
<group>Canadian
Gov't</group>
</perspective>
DTD (for simplicity sake, for now)...
<!DOCTYPE [
<!ELEMENT perspective (individual*, group*)>
<!ELEMENT individual #PCDATA>
<!ELEMENT group #PCDATA>
<!ATTLIST perspective type CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST perspective date CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!--Choices below include assumption, direct_inquiry, ModelX, ModelY,
algorithmX, patternZ, or anything else-->
<!--It may describe how the perspective was
derived-->
<!ATTLIST perspective extrapolation_type CDATA #REQUIRED
"assumption"
]>
(of course, digitally signed and verified through a mechanism--possibly
such as what Sean was developing)
I don't think in a practical sense we will need to deal with so
much complexity as Paul's research was directed towards--at least
to get the initial perspectives flushed out (although time
will tell).
I don't think we will need to get too abstract either.
In other words, I don't think we need to establish abstracted pattern
matching models to describe perspectives, or utilize mathematically tranform
perspectives (Len: when you use the word stylistic modifications, I am
assuming you mean transforming through XSLT correct?)
It is much better to let the humans themselves define them directly, as
Rex has been emphasized previously, through individuals
themselves. As humans, we polarize towards what is concrete
anyway, for better or for worse. If authority is clear and unequivocal,
we start to share a common perspective. Patterns start to merge and come
together, and the complexity relating to differences may not seem so
complex.
Too early to say though how it'll evolve.
-----------
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-cultural
Module:IslamicFundamentalism?)
>
> And to understand viewpoint, one must understand
it changes
> with respect to distance from that which is viewed.
Viewpoint
> has dimensions and the schema attempts to capture these
such
> that the principles of focus can be brought to bear. A
> ball of twine is a point from a distance, a sphere from a
>
distance, a cylinder from a distance and viewed on end, a
> filled
circle and a point. The trick is to understand
> it as a
pattern. This is what Prueitt is pointing out.
>
> The pattern directs cells of process. He calls them
> process compartments and while referred to using other
> terms
in earlier works, that is good enough. The notion
> of
orchestration is useful because it takes in the
> idea of addressable
process types on a timeline with
> some variation possible given
stylistic conventions.
>
> Schemas are patterns, can be
dynamically adjusting
> by stylistic convention, and are directable
using
> well-configured processes. One of the processes is
> identification of source and type.
>
> 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:
Kurt Cagle [mailto:kurt@kurtcagle.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 14,
2001 11:30 AM
> To: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
> Cc: slbain@netobjectives.com; humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>
Subject: Re: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-cultural
>
Module:IslamicFundamentalism?)
>
>
> This is an incredibly
good idea. Schemas by definition impose a viewpoint;
> as I point out in
most of my XML classes:
>
>
**********************************************
> You cannot understand
the fundamentals of schemas without appreciating the
> fact that all
schemas are intrinsically political, not technical. If you
> have three
departments that each have a need for a personalization schema,
> then
each department will have its own priorities and interests for that
>
schema. In that regard a schema is in effect a social contract, an
agreement
> between all parties about the domain of the schema, the
terminology used,
> the relationships (and relative priority) of
elements within the schema.
>
**********************************************
> I suspect that within a
decade, schemas will likely end up becoming an
> integral part of all
civil legal processes - are you trying to build a
> building? Then you
agree to use architectural schema
> http://www.archstandards.gov/schemata/bld1254a6
and permit process schema
> http://www.archstandards.gov/schemata/prmt2399ds
. These become part of the
> legal records, and are kept as part of an
online repository.
>
> As I see it, a significant part of what
the HumanML group itself is trying
> to do is to create a set of schemas
that attempt with some modicum of
> fidelity to model aspects of human
behavior and interaction. This is of
> course not fully possible,
precisely because in the creation of such schemas
> we do create a bias,
but if we can recognize that from the outset and
> attempt to mitigate
the bias (or introduce some mechanism that makes it
> possible to change
the bias while still maintaining fidelity to the
> standard) then I
think we can go a long way toward building a more universal
>
schema.
>
> -- Kurt
>