RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-artifact

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

That should be the way this works.   The primary schema has a set 
of base or abstract types.   The secondary schemas should contain 
derivations of these (the primary is a weak ontology) and code 
lists (enumerations for selection).  For a set of observable 
properties, that should work.   The draft that is there contains 
types drawn mostly from semiotics literature and a bit from 
our work in master name index based relational data.  It is a 
draft precisely because it is incomplete and we have to come 
to consensus on the primary definitions or everything past this 
is just gray goo.

I am a bit leery of doing anything complex in the primary because 
in the secondary applications, implementation issues will begin 
to dominate (eg, object-oriented, relational, AI inference engines, 
etc.) and then yes, it becomes even more artificial because constrained 
both by the concepts that dominate the secondaries and the need to 
get them into some kind of computing application.  So I resist 
introducing the implementation concepts at that level.

Given that the primary is a classification artifact, 
we may find we want to come back and put RDF in at that level or 
at least be sure a precise analog exists and then decide later 
which is the record of authority for the definitions.

BTW:  from day 0, I've insisted that what we are producing 
is a stereotyping model, artificial from jump, not a means 
to recreate humans.  As with any tool, useful insofar as 
it produces reliable and mostly predictable results, but not 
to be considered a means to iconize human behavior, the ultimate 
open system.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: paul [mailto:beadmaster@ontologystream.com]

Rex, I am interested in the Base Primary XML Schema, in this context;
because the name seems to be proper.  What we need is a small set of base
primary schema that gets filled in (somewhat similar to Schank's Frames with
a fixed number of slots (affordances) and each slot having a finite and open
set of values (fillers).  In this way the Schema becomes a constraint on the
formation of, and element in, an ontology.

What is wrong with using schema in this way?  The answer, is that the
industry practice is to use schema to designate documents (end products),
and here we suggest that the schema is a template related to a behavioral
expression (by a human).  (Again, am I wrong here in some way?)