[humanmarkup-comment] As If Article and thoughts about attractingattention to our cause

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi All,

I finally got around to reading the article Len referred to last week, and 
t was a helpful reminder to me. The WSIA meetings I am attending are at the 
far end of the abstraction spectrum, yet the use of Human Markup Language 
will occur largely within this extremely complex and abstract environment, 
so our task of getting as close to the unspeakable, non-abstract, reality 
of human thought and action and the emotional, cultural context in which it 
takes place is made more difficult and more necessary.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a better or easier way to do it than to 
focus down on the meanings of our vocabulary and make sure that the 
definitions of our terms are as clear as we can make them and that they map 
to things they represent as closely and accurately as we can make them.

This is very frustrating and it is going to get more frustrating as we go 
along. One of the frustrations I have had is the apparent lack of 
participation from the OASIS community and the bright population of the 
computer/internet-savvy that I would have liked. Then, the reporter 
Ranjeeth referred to me called for the interview we arranged, and my eyes 
were opened by a clear example of just how myopic I have become.

I found myself being asked for concrete examples of how Human Markup is 
supposed to work, and while I focused on certain aspects that I have used 
over time to describe how Human Markup is envisioned to work, I discovered 
that what made good sense to me did not make quick connections in my audience.

I was describing two things, how tags that represent a disconnect between 
what a subject of a social service interview says and what their 
expressions or body language says could  be harvested from a number of 
reports from a population of reports, and how the application writers would 
be the ones who would drive the actual use of Human Markup and would also 
be the ones to extend not only the functionality of the language but also 
add new terms to the base schema over time as needed. And the interviewer 
just didn't get it.

It turned out that had his own preconceptions of what Human Markup would be 
good for and he kept asking me over and over for more concrete examples 
even though I had just done that. At the time this was mutually 
frustrating, so it will be instructive to see what he actually writes.

I tried my best to debunk the myth of our own making, which earned us our 
dubious achievement awards, but I am not at all sure that I succeeded in 
doing more than complaining that we were misunderstood while trying to 
explain what our effort is attempting to do. I think he wanted to get me to 
make the kind of claims that get sneered at, like how we are going to 
reduce miscommunication. I'm afraid that I disillusioned him about our 
naivete. I certainly hope so. I just wanted to make it clear that we are 
not claiming we can change the world for the better, but that by making 
meanings explicit and clear, as much as we can, and add emotional context 
if we can, we may help make communication more accurate.

Whether the emphasis on accuracy and how much work that wi ll take, came 
through, only time will tell. But, as with the articles I continue to work 
on, and the White Papers I suggested that Sylvia consider penning, I will 
continue to try.

Ciao,
Rex