RE: [humanmarkup-comment] modified HumanML taxonomy

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Well this is then where the value of collaboration comes in.  The proposal
that I am putting forward is that the process of descirptive enumeration be
handled in some arbitary by reasonable fashion, to produce a topic map of
behaviors.  We should then stop there without developing a complicated and
often wrong enumeration of RDF attributes and metadata.

The set of enumerated types of behavior would not be burdened by layers of
other stuff, but would be clearly observable using (for example, the OSI
browsers):

http://www.ontologystream.com/tutorials/ConnectiveContext.htm





-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:44 AM
To: 'paul'; Humanmarkup-Comment
Cc: categoricalAbstraction; EinsteinInstitute; roughsets
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] modified HumanML taxonomy


The reason we moved away from enumerations of this type
in the primary (these are secondaries) was precisely
because we found that the answer is arbitrary.  So
we decided to create a toolkit approach for building
such.  HumanML might as well be SemioticML or HumanSignML
at the primary level.  What David has now is a secondary
with no primary type references.  The toolkit approach is there
such that emergence as exemplified by a human sitting
down to contruct a sign system might exhibit.  That
this is a "natural" activity is hard to debate.  It
is a "human" and "intelligent" activity.

len

From: paul [mailto:beadmaster@ontologystream.com]

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?