Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks, Sylvia,

This is good, solid thinking. (I almost said grounded--zzzt! ) I like 
the conduit concept, and brining up the issue of what a message is, 
means, consists of is excellent. THAT is an element I definitely 
think we need to include, and it brings up a wealth of considerations.

I will respond to more of the specifics later, but I wanted to thank 
you for this discussion. I have some specific reading that I have 
said I would do over the weekend, and I want to finish up an 
acceptable version of the Data Visualization in 3D as an moderately 
interactive 3D .wrl too, so I probably won't get back to channel 
until next Tuesday or Wednesday. Wednesday most likely since I have a 
fairly important WSIA TC teleconference Tuesday morning.

Hope the holiday treats you, and everyone, well.
Rex

At 3:05 PM -0600 5/24/02, cognite@zianet.com wrote:
>Re "channel":  to sum up the analysis below based on prior work of the
>committee, we Might be able to reduce to:
>
>         a channel would be a conduit of message-bearing energy. (concrete)
>         a signal would be message-bearing energy.  (concrete)
>
>         a message would be  ...?        [presupposed term, definition needed]
>
>But we need further info: How are these supposed to be used in secondaries?
>Are these characterizations sufficient for that? 
>
>
>DISCUSSION:
>
>At 07:02 AM 24-05-2002 -0700, Rex Brooks wrote:
>"
>It is described [in the StrawMan draft] as Human Communication Channel as
>senses or faculties byt which a Human communicates a message.
>
>....
>
>channel be somewhat more explicitly defined so
>that communication is understood such that a channel represents the
>ability to receive as well as to send a message. While the dictionary
>does include notions of sharing information, the definitions are
>preponderantly on the side of transmitting more than receiving, and I
>think that needs to be explicitly made clear.
>"
>
>This gives a picture on the order of a channel as a transmission mode
>between sender and receiver, right?  Something like:
>
>
>         :-| --- / channel=?=method, location(s), time-lag,... ---> :-(
>         ;-| --- /"                              ---> 8-)
>         :-) --- /"                              ---> :-)
>         >:-( ---/"                              ---> :-(
>
>To the point, what is the "channel" in each of these message "transmissions"?
>(They move from traditional to multimedia communication in several groupings.)
>
>- a conversation between people in different rooms?
>- a face-to-face conversation?
>- a smoke signal?  a mirror signal?  a satellite signal?
>
>(Note that receiving faculties are not necessarily symmetrical with sending
>faculties.  There may be offset geoLocations.  Conversations are not
>necessarily between only two people.  Does the channel exist independently
>of them?)
>
>
>- a phone conversation?
>- an answering machine message?
>- a hardcopy letter?
>- a printed book?
>- the transmission of a message by email? 
>
>(There may be offset temporalLocations.  Intermediaries, both "human" body
>"faculties" and thru tools:  How much of the phone equipment/transmission
>constitutes "channel"?  Is the channel the same for nonwireless, cellular,
>satellite, CB, )
>
>
>- an instant replay (immediate, delayed, repeated)
>- a RealPlay reception?
>- a program download?
>- a radio listener? (to canned, live, and mixed programs, w/wo immediate
>direct personal access among interlocutors)
>
>(Apprehension may be Very different from 'sending'.  Is reception required
>for a "channel" to exist?  Is apprehension/comprehension required?  Is a
>message required?)
>
>To decide how huml wants to define it, we need to answer some questions. 
>
>What is the importance of "channel" for the usability of our schema?
>Perhaps that it may limit message types, and properties of the situation?
>....For instance the message from a tenth repetition face-to-face and thru
>re-reading may change even with the same signal and signal-sensors --
>because of memory, and related effects on the parties' "faculties".... Has
>the "channel" changed?
>
>How does this [information theory] term relate to semiotics'?   In
>particular, I'm curious as to its relation to "signal".
>
>Our StrawMan inventory includes "signal", so we have a good point of 
>departure:
>
>"An interruption in a field of constant energy transfer.  An example is the
>dots and dashes that open and close the electromagnetic field of a telegraph
>circuit.  The basic function of such signals is to provide ... the change of
>a single environmental factor to attract attention and to transfer meaning."
>
>The word "transfer" here for "signal" is akin to the
>"transmitting...receiving" of "channel".  The two seem therefore to be
>cross-referential, if not overlapped. 
>
>A minor point. The StrawMan denomination of "signal" as "abstract"
>contradicts the concreteness of the amperage pulses constituting dots and
>dashes.  (Common usage in physics and engineering is "signal" for concrete
>energy.  So let's assume that.) 
>
>Communication "channels" have become increasingly complex, as the set of
>examples above shows. In multi-mode transmissions, the form the signal takes
>changes.  For example, it changes as it goes from mouth airwave vibrations
>to microphone to wires carrying clipped electrical renderings ... to phone
>speaker at the ear.  It is transformed more times than in the simplest vocal
>communication.
>
>If the signal is the concrete form of energy, then perhaps the "channel" is
>the energy conduit?  The forms taken by the signal and handled by the
>conduit must match all along the way.   Do we need an arbitrary limit on a
>channel's being external to the body?
>
>So, to sum, what this seems to be reducible to is:
>
>         a channel would be a conduit of message-bearing energy. (concrete)
>         a signal would be message-bearing energy.  (concrete)
>
>         a message would be  ...?  [presupposed term, definition needed]
>
>Assessment points:
>
>Seems good that these are coherent as a group, for the sake of consistency
>in a schema.  In talking about things we do seem to use the term "message" a
>lot. Is it a basic one? Anybody have a good definition of "message" or some
>such?
>
>And -- How are these supposed to be used in secondaries?  Are these
>characterizations sufficient for those uses?  Are they the ones that would
>be easiest for people to use? If not, what would be a propos?
>
>
>SC
>Hey, more questions, the research endemic...but at least these are kinda
>specific ;)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


--