----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:59
AM
Subject: RE: HM.Requirement: authority
(Re: Case in Point-cultural Module:IslamicFundamentalism?)
You
could use the Dublin Core to identify the source. Characteristics
of
authority are ascribed, that is, one grants authority. So a
receiver of a
message can stamp it as authoritative, or grant some entity (eg, a
university, some scholar, etc) as an authority. Then the
source and
the
authority are joined records for that message.
The
next level is the authority to create types. This is the choice
of
choices issue. For example, we have granted OASIS the
brandability of our work. They in turn have granted members
resources. These are assertions the existence of which
enables one to mark these messages as transiting within the
scope of the contract. The contract has created certain
relationships and these are governed by rules which can be
checked to validate that a behavior is of a type within
the
scope of the contract and verify that some instance of that
behavior is valid to that type. Its particular
representation
in
some media may be styled. XSLT is a means to transform;
the
properties of the target of that transformation are its style
properties.
It
is important to define/ascribe a scope (view dimensions) within
which messages are
exchange and to create a test by which one can verify that
the
message is reacted to in a valid way. In the message
from
Satwinder Mangat there are several view dimensions.
He
also describes a culture (a sikh culture), rules for dress,
and
behavior, symbolic artifacts, etc. all of which one could
use
to create a HumanML description of his view of this
culture as described in his message. He provides enough
information to test whether or not some person, behavior,
artifact, message, etc is valid within that view. In fact,
that
is the message he wants to convey: that members
of
this culture are to be differentiated from another. So
he
has created dimensions corresponding to opponency
although not one of conflict. He also notes that there
are
overlaps in these groups which may create a false
or
superstitious interpretation.
There is quite a lot to work with there.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public
Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah
bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
"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.