humanmarkup-comment message

Subject: RE: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-cultural Module:IslamicFundamentalism?)

From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga <rkthunga@humanmarkup.org>,humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:14:34 -0700

Title: RE: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-cult

I am going back to this thread preparatory to starting a new one under HM.Frameworks because I think the direction I'm heading with this belongs there rather than in HM.Requirements.

Briefly, this thread sparked a brief sojourn into the territory of viewpoint which wasn't fully explored, and, of course, I didn't have the time to follow up. Simultaneously, the notion of race ran along a track not exactly parallel, but close enough that I have had to think about both of these topics together, along with the third, and related thread that resulted in HM.Requirements:HumanProof. I ask that these be considered together in the context I am working towards. This process follows the course I have had to continue, posting in the early morning, my Pacific Time, and then not getting back to read where threads have meandered until late evening. There's no help for it right now.

Okay, destinations:

Thread 1: HM.Requirements:LegalEntity:Authority:HumanProof

I suggest you all combine these to come to the beginnings of a consensus about:

A. Levels of Verifiability;

B.Source Citing (this could be an area where collaboration or liaison with the emerging topic maps tc would be in order); and

C. Membership in Groups/CulturalModules==what it means semiotically, what it means by observations of activity versus inference and how (what mechanisms) should be considered for disconnects where an individual's veracity must be questioned, and yes, this is the area where I think Prueitt's pattern analysis comes into play for intelligence purposes.

Thread 2:HM.Requirements:Dynamic Schemata

As per Ranjeeth's suggestions, I suggest this area is one where some heavy lifting xml schema groundwork should be considered in laying a foundation for Modules in a practical way.

Thread 3: HM.Frameworks:Perceptions

This is the new one I mentioned above, and I will return to it later. I believe it, rather than viewpoints belongs in Frameworks because it fits into the Taxonomies and Ontologies we have been collecting, while viewpoints belong, I think, in the arena of the how the human object (specific instance) actually behaves--what information it collects, where it goes and what it does, rather than how it arrives at the decisions it makes, what it believes, and when does it reach decision points.

And as Ranjeeth points out, I maintain that until required by such disconnects described above, we must take any human object's word on who it is, what groups it belongs to, etc.

I will post about Perceptions later in the weekend.

Ciao,

Rex

At 1:59 PM -0500 9/14/01, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga [mailto:rkthunga@humanmarkup.org]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:20 PM
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-cultural Module:IslamicFundamentalism?)

"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>





<!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.

--

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request

References:
- RE: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-cultural Module:IslamicFundamentalism?)
  - From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>