[humanmarkup-comment] regarding stratified complexity systems andsemiotics

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

One must always make an apology for science when the principles are beyond
what is desired by those who live in a illusion.

This is as it is.  The mark-up of human behavior is what the Oasis
Human-Mark-up standard will be about, when it is offered as a first draft?
Yes?  Perhaps we need use-cases that demonstrate examples where the standard
would be used.

So, the reason why human mark-up must be framed in a stratified point of
view is that any set of behaviors (for example, human learning behavior) is
a composition of reflexes.  (One can think of the scholarly discussion about
reflex arcs as introduced by Sherrington and then as part of behavior
science).  Knowing the set of reflexes as a level of organization (like
atoms) and the behaviors as a different level of organization (like chemical
compounds), leads to a Peircean type model (semiotics) for agile composition
of atoms into compounds.  Several of my students are working on issues
relating this notion of composition of behavioral atoms to the
OntologyStream Knowledge Operating System - but I just do not see how to
involve them, or myself in the Oasis process. (Still listening.)

The notion of complexity has to do with underdetermined "behavior" where the
exact determination of the "behavior" (which must occur at some point) is a
selection between possible outcomes (the collapse of the wave.)

Rex, you ask about whether Len is talking about the combination of
applications where the Mark-up, related to the XML - or ontology - internal
to the application, is in domains of archeological/anthropological knowledge
or geological knowledge.

There is an aspect of terminology comparison in this problem of annotating
knowledge structure.  This aspect does involve scope and viewpoint and thus
is both complex and (I think) requiring of a stratified approach.

Clearly we need to have a means to markup how humans learn in various
domains.  Do you see this issue as relevant to the mission of the Human
Mark-up committee?

I am really trying to get a boundary around why one wants to have a Human
mark up language/(set of symbols).