RE: [humanmarkup-comment] modified HumanML taxonomy

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

For David's modified taxonomy to work within the 
current design, the classes need to identify 
the primary, then derive what he has now from that. 
Because we still have work to do to ensure the 
primaries are what is needed, anything is just a 
draft or prototype of an approach.  That said, 
the prototype is neat.

How to apply theories of behavior will be needed.
 
The diagram I submitted yesterday (derived from 
a paper on "Evaluating Intelligence:  A Computational 
Semiotics Perspective: Gudwin" which references a 
paper by Albus, "Outline for a Theory of Intelligence" 
is a rough sketch of the kinds of layers one might 
apply which can take a sign system as input and react 
intelligently given some environment in which the 
sign consumer acts and reacts.   Whereas we may 
not specify a behavior system, per se, we do need 
some overall context of how we posit the language 
we are designing will work.  The output of such a 
system IS a behavior, an action, and that might 
be one specified in a secondary taxonomy of 
behaviors.  Such behavioral systems are used in 
many fields for prediction and analysis.  A question 
for the current phase is how we propose to declare 
human communication behaviors at the most useful 
abstract level, that is, what goes into the primary 
set.  It has to be a pretty simple abstraction. 

Remember everyone, this is out of the box, artificial. 
We can make models and discover by prediction 
and observation contexts in which they are useful 
and accurate, but to say we have created a "true" 
model of humans or even fully described human 
communication would be a big stretch at best.

len


From: Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) [mailto:mbatsis@humanmarkup.org]

paul wrote:

>And, as always, there are more than one valid theory of behavior.   
>
IHMO, there is no reason to cover any theory of behavior. It's 
impossible to invent something that will answer to every need and 
interpretation; the best one can come up with, is a reusable set of 
tools to use for vertical development.

>The issue of how RDF classes are expected to be used is also important to talk about, and all I ever see is conversation among the initiated as if some first principles where understood by everyone who needs to understand.  
>
I agree with your view that we are all guilty on that, however this is 
volunteer  work. If one is interested on some basic background, he must 
go out there and look for it. In a list with so diverse interests, 
providing the basics would be unbearable; the volume of messages gets 
awfully great and messy when compared to posts maching one's interest.

>Now one can ask about the origin of this list of about attributes.  Is the list complete in every way or are there some issues here and there with one or more of the attributes?
>
>Who has decided on these and not some other attributes?  Can we add or subtract to this list?  
>

How about "no list", just types from which you can draw your objects. 
The type, or maybe interface if you preffer, from which one can draw 
members of that type is the best there can be as far as my limited 
imagination has gone. Besides, no term can have a global, unique meaning 
amongst applications... or even people; thats easy to figure out once 
you ask for interpretations from some. People that give the same 
interpretations in a term, usually share a similar function or other 
relationship against it.

So the only way for such a language to be usefull is to provide the 
tools; links for connecting types with handlers whithin an application 
to provide for emulation of meaning and anticipation.