RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Yep. I agree. How are we doing on sign systems? I saw a few posts on 
xml-dev that included semiotes, but I have been too busy cranking out 
the facial animation system to pay enough attention. Do we have an 
idea what begins to constitute a sign system per se?

Ciao,
Rex

At 9:55 AM -0500 7/30/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>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.


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com