RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Base Schema-chronemic

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I know about those TooMuchOnMyPlate days.

As long as we keep the threads recognizable I don't at all mind 
taking a break from the alphabetical approach to make sure we are all 
grounded. We could then return to it or not as we see fit.

However, my main concern is that we not dissolve into a freeform 
discussion that becomes impossible to track and retrieve from the 
archives. That was one of the big problems in retrospect with our 
Phase 0 work in terms of recreating the chronology and the 
development of the concepts we formed as the basis for our subsequent 
work. I see the problem in the context of other OASIS TCs and other 
standards bodies and working groups. When I say problem, I mean 
problemmatic, not difficult, although it can be that, too.

As far as types are concerned, I was under the impression that we 
were just dealing with simple and complex, and abstract or not in XML 
terms. If by type you are referring to the difference between 
symbolic and non-symbolic, then the discussion is broader than 
strictly XML. I don't mind that, either, as long as it we don't 
confuse the issues we are discussing.

I'm not sure what you mean by stratified complexity systems and 
semiotics converging in a common application. Did you perhaps mean a 
common approach or methodology? I know for sure you would not suggest 
HumanML as an application in and of itself.

At least I think I do :)

Ciao,
Rex



At 11:09 AM -0500 6/7/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>It's the usual TooMuchOnPlate day, but I hope to provide
>some comments related to the overall set of types being
>provided; to wit, we may need to back off the alphabetical
>review and look at the semiotic basis and the definitions to establish
>some basic definitions for signs.  Without those, understanding
>how composites such as artifact work, or applying non symbolic
>concepts such as channel and chronemic is hard.   As I read
>through the reviews, I get the sense of the blind men and
>elephant problem.  That is, the underlying theories people
>apply to this are overlapping but not isomorphic, so it is
>truly difficult to know when a consensus has been reached
>with the terminology being overloaded.
>
>I need to understand how stratified complexity systems
>and semiotics converge in a common application.
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>
>
>Hi again, again,
>
>Is it the case that no one has anything to say about chronemic? I
>know this is not the case because various aspects of time-binding
>have been mentioned in the discussions of artifact and channel.
>However, to be able to pull those ideas out of the threads we are
>creating, they need to be brought up in messages under the thread to
>which they belong. This may seem tedious, especially since OASIS is
>very slow in updating those archives by thread as opposed to dates.
>This is something that I have to take up with them soon, while I go
>through updating our work according to the emerging standard formats
>they are developing as spectools.
>
>So, please, if you can take the time, pull out the time-based
>arguments you have made. I think there may be an application overlap
>in the area of simulations of human behavior within
>archeological/anthropological contexts that would directly employ
>artifacts for forensic anthropology. For instance, say a group wanted
>to reconstruct living conditions of Bronze Age Peoples from various
>localities around the mediterranean and contrast them with the living
>conditions of similar people in the Southwestern desert of North
>America.
>
>How many different aspects of chronemics would be employed in
>creating such simulations? How would the simulations change with the
>advent of further archeological discoveries?
>
>Ciao,
>Rex
>
>
>Hi again,
>
>While it seems a bit gratuitous to reply to my own posts, it is
>necessary to keep the sequential nature of the threads in order.
>
>In thinking about chronemic elements, beyond the time-binding aspect
>of session-specific interactions between humans, between machine(s)
>and human(s), between agent(s) and human(s), between machine(s) and
>agent(s) and between agents, both in real-time transactional
>interactions like shopping, discussions, and information searches, or
>simulation scenarios, I am struck by the necessity to expand this
>notion to include archeological, geological, and anthropological time.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Ciao,
>Rex
>
>At 11:57 AM -0700 5/29/02, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>Hi Everyone,
>>
>>I'm introducing a new element to consider today. This is the first
>>of what I call our "stuff-ics" family of elements that end with ic
>>and into which a lot of stuff is stuffed. The other members of this
>>family are kinesics, haptics and proxemics, to which I will suggest
>>adding cosmetics in a separate post. However, one reason for
>>pointing out the apparent grouping of these terms into a humorous
>>family is to call attention to one of the reasons why I think it is
>>important for all of the OASIS standards to contribute to a
>>system-wide glossary. Both our TC and the WSIA /WSRP TCs include a
>>glossary, and while I haven't read all of the websites for the TCs,
>>I expect many also do this. So I am copying this message to Karl
>>Best to consider that suggestion--an OASIS glossary, harmonizing
>>usages where possible and listing terms with their complete
>>definitions as used in OASIS Standards with comparisons and/or
>>contrasts to usages outside of XML. This came about because for the
>>purpose of not using or choosing between or amongst several
>>overloaded terms it became necessary to resort to calling a class of
>>services thingies until such time as that discussion can settle on
>>more precise, less overloaded terminology. We need a standard
>>reference for our standards. This goes hand-in-glove with the
>>development of standard templates for OASIS specifications and
>>websites .
>>
>>So, having said that, I will get down off my soap box and proceed on
>>with the business to hand:
>>
>>chronemic
>>
>>This is a Complex Type with the attribute of abstract, which we
>>should all be getting more familiar with by now, though it applies
>>with some less apparent ramifications in this element.
>>
>>This element gathers together the concepts related to human time
>>management, and they can be used very different with respect to
>>individuals and cultures. Time perceptions include punctuality,
>>readiness to act, willingness to wait, and how such states influence
>>interactions. Time use affects lifestyles, daily agendas, speech and
>>movement, to name only a few.
>>
>>Rather than cite the entire description from the straw man schema, I
>>am going to ask you to refresh your memories by reading it again,
>>and I will introduce more of those less apparent ramifications later
>>this week. However, as I ready my further comments for channel and
>>chronemic, I would like you all to consider some relatively pressing
>>connections between our efforts and such efforts as knowledge
>>management, which, like time management, involves one of the largest
>>areas for human markup to provide means for improving. Pulling, or
>>extracting, or abstracting data from anecdotal text, such as
>>conference reports, historical accounts, etc, is one of the tools
>>HumanMarkup can provide and one of the aims we seek to fulfill.
>>
>>More to come,
>>Rex
>
>
>
>
>--
>--
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


--