[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-culturalModule:IslamicFundamentalism?)
"Dynamic schemas" is the way I am capturing this thread...representing
different perspectives based on established patterns.
Here is an instance of a perspective (i.e. authority) 'module' I
came up with-- for lack of a better word at this stage.
These can describe each XML Schema. RDF is used to annotate XML
documents, but has it also been used for annotating XML Schemas
themselves? I still have some past threads and reference to
study regarding RDF related to HumanML, but this is a question that now
pops up for me.
The 'bias' factor has to made explicit at the onset.
<perspective type="??" date="09.02.2001" extrapolation_type="direct
inquiry" />
<individual>Bill
Jacobs</individual>
<individual>Representative John Billy</individual>
<individual>Senator
Joe Whiter</individual>
<group>US State
Dept</group>
<group>Canadian
Gov't</group>
</perspective>
DTD (for simplicity sake, for now)...
<!DOCTYPE [
<!ELEMENT perspective (individual*, group*)>
<!ELEMENT individual #PCDATA>
<!ELEMENT group #PCDATA>
<!ATTLIST perspective type CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST perspective date CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!--Choices below include assumption, direct_inquiry, ModelX, ModelY,
algorithmX, patternZ, or anything else-->
<!--It may describe how the perspective was
derived--> <!ATTLIST perspective extrapolation_type CDATA #REQUIRED
"assumption"
]>
(of course, digitally signed and verified through a mechanism--possibly
such as what Sean was developing)
I don't think in a practical sense we will need to deal with so
much complexity as Paul's research was directed towards--at least
to get the initial perspectives flushed out (although time
will tell).
I don't think we will need to get too abstract either.
In other words, I don't think we need to establish abstracted pattern
matching models to describe perspectives, or utilize mathematically tranform
perspectives (Len: when you use the word stylistic modifications, I am
assuming you mean transforming through XSLT correct?)
It is much better to let the humans themselves define them directly, as Rex
has been emphasized previously, through individuals themselves. As
humans, we polarize towards what is concrete anyway, for better or for
worse. If authority is clear and unequivocal, we start to share a common
perspective. Patterns start to merge and come together, and the complexity
relating to differences may not seem so complex.
Too early to say though how it'll evolve.
-----------
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "Kurt Cagle" <kurt@kurtcagle.net>; "Ranjeeth Kumar
Thunga" <rkthunga@humanmarkup.org>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-cultural
Module:IslamicFundamentalism?) > And to understand viewpoint, one must understand it changes > with respect to distance from that which is viewed. Viewpoint > has dimensions and the schema attempts to capture these such > that the principles of focus can be brought to bear. A > ball of twine is a point from a distance, a sphere from a > distance, a cylinder from a distance and viewed on end, a > filled circle and a point. The trick is to understand > it as a pattern. This is what Prueitt is pointing out. > > The pattern directs cells of process. He calls them > process compartments and while referred to using other > terms in earlier works, that is good enough. The notion > of orchestration is useful because it takes in the > idea of addressable process types on a timeline with > some variation possible given stylistic conventions. > > Schemas are patterns, can be dynamically adjusting > by stylistic convention, and are directable using > well-configured processes. One of the processes is > identification of source and type. > > Len Bullard > Intergraph Public Safety > clbullar@ingr.com > http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard > > Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. > Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Cagle [mailto:kurt@kurtcagle.net] > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:30 AM > To: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga > Cc: slbain@netobjectives.com; humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: HM.Requirement: authority (Re: Case in Point-cultural > Module:IslamicFundamentalism?) > > > This is an incredibly good idea. Schemas by definition impose a viewpoint; > as I point out in most of my XML classes: > > ********************************************** > You cannot understand the fundamentals of schemas without appreciating the > fact that all schemas are intrinsically political, not technical. If you > have three departments that each have a need for a personalization schema, > then each department will have its own priorities and interests for that > schema. In that regard a schema is in effect a social contract, an agreement > between all parties about the domain of the schema, the terminology used, > the relationships (and relative priority) of elements within the schema. > ********************************************** > I suspect that within a decade, schemas will likely end up becoming an > integral part of all civil legal processes - are you trying to build a > building? Then you agree to use architectural schema > http://www.archstandards.gov/schemata/bld1254a6 and permit process schema > http://www.archstandards.gov/schemata/prmt2399ds . These become part of the > legal records, and are kept as part of an online repository. > > As I see it, a significant part of what the HumanML group itself is trying > to do is to create a set of schemas that attempt with some modicum of > fidelity to model aspects of human behavior and interaction. This is of > course not fully possible, precisely because in the creation of such schemas > we do create a bias, but if we can recognize that from the outset and > attempt to mitigate the bias (or introduce some mechanism that makes it > possible to change the bias while still maintaining fidelity to the > standard) then I think we can go a long way toward building a more universal > schema. > > -- Kurt > |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC