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

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

I think I can keep it straight if I do it one bit at a time. 
First, signs.  The discussion of channels went in different 
directions, apparently, so I don't think we can do that 
until we do the more basic pieces.  As I stated into that, 
I began to realize just how messy channels are in the 
primary because it is an overloaded term in the literature.

Then, yes, we may need to talk about semiotic applications. 
Stratified complexity is the topic that Paul has brought 
up.  What we need to determine there is where that goes, 
vis a vis, applications or I don't know if we are talking 
about the same things in the data.

So we may have to talk application architectures just 
a bit to make sure our abstractions are indeed, consensual.
By introducing EMOTE concerns or VR/simulation concerns, 
the camel's nose is in the tent.

I was doing research yesterday and am coding today 
(Visual FoxPro....), so I will have to come back to this.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto: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 :)