RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Very good questions and exctly what I asked myself. I can argue 
almost any side of it except my own, which is to dump it as 
unworkable and vague, but then we see it in use everywhere all the 
time, and won't we be opening ourselves up for obvious ridicule if we 
don't at least deal with it in SOME way?

I want to hear more people's opinion on this. I'm for doing something 
like saying that thought itself is undefineable, so that it is there 
as a placeholder that at the very least does not invalidate anyone 
using it in an application that has to validate against our schemata. 
But heck, it is another one of those questions which I can see coming 
now: "And just HOW are we going to do THAT within XML Schema?"

Let's hear it, folks, this is a biggie. At least as big as do we 
define human as homo sapiens.

Ciao,
Rex

At 9:59 AM -0500 10/11/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Is it needed?  Let's be sure.  There is no
>observable way to indicate it, and anyone
>who has one has to have more to indicate
>it.  It has fine potential for infinite
>regression.
>
>Put another way:  what would one use this for?
>Someone point me to a human thought ontology.
>
>"I just had a thought!"
>"WHERE?"
>"Here!"
>"Show it to me!"
>"I can't!"
>"Can you tell me what it was?"
>"Maybe... oh darn, I forgot!"
>
>len
>
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>
>Here we go again.
>
>Base Schema - thought
>
>This is a Complex Type element with the abstract attribute. It takes
>the attribute group humlIdentifierAtts. It does not reference other
>elements and is not used by other elements.
>
>It is defined/desccribed as Human Thought A set of human thought types.
>
>There is no doubt that this element is needed. However, unlike
>Personality, where we have an established set of typing systems to
>which we can, (thanks be), defer, here we don't and I am rather
>reluctant to stick my toe into these waters to see what the
>temperature is at the moment.
>
>If conscious is difficult to nail down to tangible concepts, or
>concepts grounded in tangibility or common sense, thought is more so.
>If there is anything in human consciousness more ephemeral, please
>don't tell me about it.
>
>I'm sorry, but as we near the end of this task, I can't help but set
>the stage for the Secondary Base Schema, where thought types will
>need to be enumerated. So, for those of you who will shortly be
>tasked with building our model of human perception/congnition from
>the elements of the combined Base Schemata, I suggest strongly that
>you give some serious consideration to what constitutes a thought, a
>thought type and how you want to use it as the atom of which human
>thought systems will be built. This is a way of saying, it probably
>aint gonna be me. I'm switching over the Human Physical
>Characteristics Description and focusing most all of my other efforts
>on systematizing emotional expressions and kinesic gestures.
>
>That doesn't mean I won't contribute my opinions, but about the most
>I can do in that regard will be to massage the classes/properties to
>reflect the now-codified base, and the enlargements as they come
>along, and the biggest of those, which I hope to cheer y'all on
>toward, is perception/cognition.
>
>Beware, There Be Dragons....
>
>(Of course, if you check my website, you'll know I happen to love
>Dragons. However, they are fearsome powerful...)


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