Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Everyone,

I'm baaaack. Lucky you <facetious />

Seriously, after quite a bit of water under bridge, and a bit more 
thought, I think we should refine channel  further, thus:

a sensoryChannel would be a conduit for input information into a 
human object, i.e. an instantiation of the human element

a communicationChannel would be a conduit of message-bearing energy

a signal would be message-bearing energy (which we will still revisit 
in order when we get there, realising that it may be further refined 
by that time.)

While it would be possible to derive these from channel as it is 
written in the straw man, I think it would necessitate a third level 
of abstraction as a secondary base schema, so to speak, so what I 
propose is that we take the time to define some basic, if derived, 
elements to avoid a secondary base schema just for these top level 
derivations. I do think that these distinctions will turn up for many 
of our singular base elements.

Thoughts?

Ciao,
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>


--