RE: [huml-comment] RE: Human Markup Language 1.0 considered harmfulREvisited - Size of committee

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I answered the last entry in my inbox first again, but what I said 
there applies here, too. I will have to get back to this to give it 
the thought it deserves. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. This is 
the kind of criticism which will help us the most, so you have my 
thanks.

Ciao,
Rex

At 2:54 PM -0800 11/29/02, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>Hmm, I really meant self-selected, not self-appointed.
>
>My experience matches yours considering the 7-10 (if you're lucky) who do
>the work. I also have the sense that standards committees these days are
>having difficulty constituting themselves.  I don't know if this is your
>experience or not.
>
>When I said that, beside taking a cheap shot, I was concerned that one of
>two things can happen - it is a choir preaching to itself, something I have
>been party to way too many times, or that there is not a true consensus but
>a work product that allows 7 different agendas to be pursued under it.  It
>is something I watch out for.  I am more concerned for the latter, based on
>my reading and discussion so far.
>
>But you know, if you could construct an use case about your preferred use of
>this, and others who have a definite application in mind did likewise, it
>might be powerful in determining whether HML is over-constrained or too
>abstracted to satisfy the main chartered goal.
>
>I reread section 3, and I applaud you.  I also think the basic charge is
>difficult enough to measure the fulfillment of: enhance the fidelity of
>human communication.
>
>I would expect to see a clear statement of how one could determine that to
>have been done (especially with regard to the idea of fidelity) and some
>reflection on every element and description with regard to a simple
>question: "How does the presence and application of this element enhance the
>fidelity of human communication?"
>
>-- Dennis
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 07:25
>To: Rex Brooks; rkthunga@humanmarkup.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org;
>humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: 'William Anderson'
>Subject: [huml-comment] RE: Human Markup Language 1.0 considered harmful
>REvisited
>
>
>Hi Again,
>
>Some short further thoughts.
>
>On the small group of self-appointed standards writers:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>I hope we hear from some other folks on this collection of withering
>criticisms.
>
>I have refrained from going into particulars of my own pet project
>for HumanML:  Multi-User, Interactive, Real-Time, 3D-Virtual-Reality
>Environments with standard VRML/X3D/H-Anim representations of humans
>(avatars) capable of standards-based emotions and gestures in
>addition to the other basic human behaviors of walking, running, etc.
>
>[ ... ]
>
>Have a Happy Thanksgiving, all,
>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