[huml-comment] Conflict Interpretation - Initial Prototype and Use Case

[Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga <rkthunga@interposting.com>]

Hi All,

I am sending a potential application of HumanML for use in conflict
resolution. 

I'm including links to a prototype images from the forms I am creating.
Rex:  I hope we can work together a bit, so I can ensure that this will be
in line with the style guidelines of the HumanMarkup.org website itself,
when I have the prototype finished.

-------------------------------
I. HTML FORM - PROTOTYPE WALKTHROUGH
-------------------------------

(NOTE: These aren't LIVE forms yet.)
http://www.interposting.com/web/conflict1.htm
http://www.interposting.com/web/conflict2.htm


These two forms are self-explanatory.  The first form, a submittor sends a
communique to several recepients and interpretators.  The second form shows
how an interpretator can embed HumanML information within the original
communique, to provide additional information and perspective.

I stuck with using only Primary Base Schema elements at this stage, to
demonstrate what can be done with it alone--that's what we need to focus on
right now, as Len and Rex mentioned.  As you can see, they are represented
with simple text containers that could contain written notes.  These can be
very useful data attached to the interpretation, to be able to track and
compare interpretations of parties involved.

---

As for the actual TEXT markup in the conflict2.htm document however, we will
likely run into clumsiness using XML, as I mentioned in my last post.  We
will have to develop hacks and workarounds to ensure XML compatibility as
you suggest Rex, but I do look forward to LMNL solution.  

Ol' fashion HTML?  Works better than XML...Sylvia:  I guess I now realize
that overlapping, arbitrary tagging is actually a feature, not a bug ;)
Manos:  From my experience with RDF, the multiple layers that I describe
would be possible but I think a bit difficult also.  

Rex suggested that I check with you, to make sure that what you see might
also be representable in RDF.

---

Based on your feedback to me Rex, I am NOT at this point delving into the
levels past interpretation--yet.  I wanted to keep it REAL simple and
straightforward, to show how HumanML can be used to clarify the
interpretative process.  If this is clear, then we can move on, incorporated
Secondary Base Schema elements as they develop.

-------------------------------
II. PowerPoint / UML / VIRTUAL MODELS
-------------------------------
I have started to translate some of my earlier thoughts into a UML sequence
based on Manos's suggestion using virtual models that Rob would offer,
representing different parties.  In the meantime, I am considering the
following 

1) SUBMISSION --> INTERPRETATION

OR

2) SENDER --> RECIPIENT -> INTERPRETATION -> OFFICIAL SUBMISSION ->
RESUBMISSION It could have still shots of a two virtual parties interfacing
in dialogue.

OR

3) SUBMISSION --> MESSAGE TO INTERPRETATOR -> INTERPRETATION1 ->
INTERPRETATION2 -> INTERPRETATION3 -> INTERPRETATION COMPARISION -> CONFLICT
EXTRACTION

---------------------------------
III. PRESENTATION AT CIDOC
---------------------------------

I'm leaning towards keeping it real simple right now (i.e. the first one)
but please let me know how much time you have, and whether the concept I
describe makes enough sense for either of you to describe.  I haven't yet
finalized the format--I'll get that as soon as I can in the next day or two
(please do let me know if I am running past your absolute timeline is
James/Sylvia--I want to make sure you have my materials in time for review
and adjustment).  

I'll adjust accordingly.  If you would like to present a working prototype
as well, definitely let me know.  I'm very hopeful I can have that ready
soon.

----------
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.454 / Virus Database: 253 - Release Date: 2/10/2003