RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - symbol

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I don't agree, but not because I don't think this is logically 
consistent, but because XML Schema attributes is a pit of quicksand I 
am desperately trying to avoid. I can live with humlIdentifierAtts 
and I could even live with humlCommIdentifierAtts. However, in terms 
of processing, if I had my way, we would only ever have elements with 
values for a clear set of datatypes, but that is not possible.

Also, I think we would open a big door into much more work than I 
have the capacity to handle if we do this. While I freely admit that 
I am emotionally aghast at the prospect, it isn't the emotion which 
is driving my opposition to this. It is the amount of retrofitting 
work this would take. I just don't have the capacity. It is taking 
all I can do to complete what we are doing. If we do this, we need to 
find someone who can do the work within OASIS because I don't have 
the capacity. I have basically given up my income-making work, not 
just due to this work, but because graphic design always takes a big 
hit in economic downturns, and I suspect that once history takes some 
of the margin of error out of the economic statistics for the last 
year and half we will find that we have had a stagnant economy at 
best and a recession, especially if you factor out non-discriminatory 
(necessities) consumer spending and a Real Estate market thriving on 
the lowest lending rates the fed can manage to sustain.

So, is it possible to construct something of a First Principle? Could 
we just make sign the basis of the semiotic process, which doesn't 
need the rest of our Primary Base Schema except as elements. We don't 
have a web language that fits it and we certainly do not have the 
accompanying structure to make procedures work for it within the 
existing structure of the web, but we also can't lose our XML Schema 
mentor.

I agree, in the beginning there is the sign and the perceiver, but I 
wouldn't put too much emphasis on Peirce. Saussure had a lot to say, 
too.

Ciao,
Rex

P.S. Len, are you trying to give me a heart attack? ;)

At 9:08 AM -0500 10/10/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>We should stop and rethink the primary with
>regards to this.  Further research into Pearce makes
>me believe that all we need in the primary is sign and
>it should have attributes for symbol, icon, signal, etc. 
>
>Sylvia?  Others?
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org;
>humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - symbol
>
>
>Hi Everyone,
>
>It would be nice, for the purpose of finishing up our Primary Base
>Schema if I could say, "Another day, another element," but, while
>time may be neither linear nor some kind of endless simultaneous
>moment, I still have to take these elements one at a time.
>
>symbol
>
>This element is a Complex Type with the attribute abstract, taking
>the attribute family humlIdentifierAtts and does not reference other
>elements. It is not used by other elements.
>
>The description/definition reads: Any device with which an
>abstraction can be made. May include written and spoken language as
>well as visual objects. [It] May include a process of symbolization.
>[It] May be culturally specific and often used as means to
>communicate cultural values. [It] May and often do appear in clusters
>and depend upon one another for meaning and value. [It may] Tend to
>be imprecise and evocative particularly of emotion.
>
>This is the third and best understood of the basic terms we are
>taking from semiotics. As sign is the most basic level of
>abstraction, just one step from the reality being described, symbol
>is the second level of abstraction by which the concept of the
>reality is expressed in some manner that is now one further step
>removed from the reality. At this level some physical representation
>of the reality that resembles the reality may be attempted, or, as
>the ladder of abstraction begins to be used, there may be no direct
>connection between the symbol and the reality.
>
>This is also the key term which opens our work up to the practical
>contributions of Linguistics because we are now examining the
>cultural process of symbolization over the course of time in the
>sense of a cultural timeframe by which a culture develops a specific
>language. Fronm this flows the many useful concepts we can borrow
>from Linguistics which describe that culture and that development in
>larger language groups and larger, evolutionary timeframes.
>
>I invite our experts to begin thinking of the useful terms we can
>derive from sign, signal and symbol for the Secondary Base Schema,
>because that is where the really gritty work begins.
>
>Ciao,
>Rex
>--
>Rex Brooks
>Starbourne Communications Design
>1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
>http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


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