RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks, Len,

This makes sense, too. Let's noodle some more before next Wednesday 
and maybe we will hear from some of the others. Thought Processes 
will work from a neurological viewpoint, but I agree that we may not 
want to put that into the Primary. I think we could have an appendix 
that gathers some troublesome conceptual elements like thought and 
says that if a suitable use is suggested that needs an element in the 
primary in order to work, then we can add it later. It is the process 
for adding that also needs some noodling and comparing with other 
standards groups.

Ciao,
Rex

At 12:41 PM -0500 10/11/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Let's step back and investigate the notion
>of *thought process*.  This may have some merit,
>but it means (at least to me), that this may
>not belong in the primary.   Note the following
>article and the emphasis on types of thought
>processes:
>
>http://www.investigativepsych.com/explained.htm
>
>We have briefly discussed the need for an adjunct
>to model processes that can use our categorical
>types as inputs and outputs.  We've not been
>able to tackle it yet.
>
>len


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