[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: HM.applications-Profiling-Level of Details/Abstraction
Yes. Some data aspects of a human profile will be the same across all applications (eg, physical descriptors, addresses, locations, etc.). It is when we get into a theory (gestalt, cognitive, behavioral, etc,), and a policy of an organization or agency (police, school, medical, etc.) that we should see mixed namespaces (think relational views where ontologies are used to select the WHERE conditions). This is almost orthogonal to services and yet not. A service has to advertise what kinds of tasks it can perform and these can be creation or modification of certain document types based on the policies/rules that govern the processes for that kind of document. So it is possible (in fact exactly what is done) for a school system to access data in the police database and get a restricted and task appropriate set of documents/reports. This isn't HumanML but how any cross-agency database works. HumanML standardizes and extends some of the kinds of information collected (eg, cultural). On the other hand, a "gang" is a kind of culture and police databases do collect that kind of information. They don't collect it to the level of detail some other database might. In fact, part of the use of services is to enable a system or user to collect data from multiple services to product some kind of report. So it comes back to communication and how to detect failures or to enhance communication. HumanML should work for both ends of that spectrum. Not only to help with miscommunication, but to help construct a successful communication. Take the example we used in Phase 0 of selecting the greeting. Given a cultural dictionary, it is just as easy to ask for the right greeting in advance as to have to correct the wrong one. Given a profile and stereotype (not the same thing), a lot of this could be done automatically and would be part of training an agent for some goal-directed task or creating a task-specific HCI. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga [mailto:rkthunga@humanmarkup.org] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:52 PM To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Fw: HM.applications-Profiling-Level of Details/Abstraction ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga" <rkthunga@humanmarkup.org> To: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:18 PM Subject: Re: HM.applications-Profiling-Level of Details/Abstraction > > > > A quickie: We've already had quite a bit of work done here on > > Profiling, and since that thread is fairly easy to get hold of for > > our core topics purposes, I won't start from scratch on it. > > > > So, given what we have already said, and given that we have an actual > > functional beginning in the Schema Toolkit, I would like to see what > > folks think about establishing Levels of Details or Abstraction for > > Human Object Profiles. > > > How do we provide for this in a sensible way. Be aware that this is > > fraught with pitfalls. > > > I do think that there would be infinite levels of detail (reductionist) or abstraction (holistic) ways of combining different types of information in different ways inherent in the schema design. Of course, a police profile would be different from a psychotherapist's profile, different from a certain religious order's profile--different sets of often the same Human modules, all along.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC