RE: [humanmarkup-comment] modified HumanML taxonomy

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

Not exactly.  Right now we don't have a primary 
for "intent" or a way to indicate that some given 
set of gestures signifies (can be interpreted as) 
this.intent.  The current focus is on getting what 
might be called in a class system,  
the base classes.  I avoid class terminology 
simply to preserve the freedom of the schema 
to be used in non-object-oriented implementations 
although I understand why that might be preferred.

So until we have those and are clear, I really 
prefer that such RDF or XML secondary schemata 
not be publicly passed around too far afield. 
I've no objection to prototypes to demonstrate 
what is wanted by an application.

len

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

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>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. 
>

Does this mean we just use different terminology?