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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Good. It is best to be grounded.

The difficulty of overloaded terminology is a growing concern in many 
circles.I am, in fact, on yet another sub-subcommittee on just that 
topic: a specific glossary, and I have already brought that up to 
OASIS as something that needs work to avoid some potential pitfalls.

Good luck with the coding.

Ciao,
Rex

At 1:03 PM -0500 6/7/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>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 :)


--