RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community

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

1.  I didn't mean to use consent as an attribute candidate. 
I was just offering that as one exception to community by 
consensus.  In other words, yes, as you say, not abstract 
enough.  Group simply means that a set of humans has been 
grouped.  It leaves the reason vague, and acts almost 
like the Group in VRML (grouped for whatever reason; the 
label is an identifier, not a classifier).

2.  Perception.  That is vague because it is overloaded, 
for one.   I prefer not to tackle it now.  At the moment, 
I am interested in considering how a human in a group 
or not in a group can be said to have competence over 
multiple sign systems.   In other words, belonging 
to a culture may say of a stereotype, yes this stereotype 
can handle this sign system, but it can't be said 
of an individual human unless they observably demonstrate 
competence.  That is the HR problem in a nutshell.  Once 
we have a sign system, then testing is the way to deal 
with perceptions.

We will only ever be able to deal with models of humans, 
and models of systems modeled humans work with.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]

Actually, I'm thinking in sets, both overlapping and enveloping, that 
is subsets, supersets, and intersecting sets. I don't have a 
structure yet. I'm hoping that as we explore this element, some 
structure or structures will emerge. I also think that what is 
occurring to me is the beginning of an approach to the concept of 
perception. It has always been the big missing piece for me. If you 
look back at the class structure I did, for example. I included as 
much of the established concepts, such as personality type models, as 
I thought seemed safe, but I did not include cognition or perception 
models. I may be getting closer to a comfort zone for that, but I'm 
not there yet.

I agree that the familial relationship is less consenting while 
children remain in their minority, though it would apply after that, 
and even before, psychologically if not legally. I'm not sure about 
consent as an attribute at the base level. I'd like to hear from the 
others. What I am thinking is: group - any collection of one or more 
humans with or without consent, and group is the atomic level of 
community. How it orders itself in ascending levels of abstraction is 
not clear to me yet, but this seems necessary to me as the basis for 
building up a picture of where group/community belief structures 
define however much of any given individual member's perceptions or 
predisposition toward taking the group/community belief structure as 
their own perceptions.