|
The cultural/historical/political/personal_belief
IDENTITY is what differentiates definitions from another...there is no such
thing as a precise word definition except it has attached a particular identity
with it.
Below is a trashy example (I admit) but makes
the point pretty clearly about a markup language for human consumption, and as
Rob mentioned it could be numbers or letters.
Hypothetical example
--------------------------------
For "geek" sub-culture, happiness may
be represented from 0% to 100%
For "literary" sub-culture, happiness may be
enumerated as "cathartic" "jubilent" or "ecstatic"
For "pop_psychology" sub-culture, happiness may be
enumerated as digits from a scale of 1 to 10
The job of mapping these to rendering languages is
not the job of HumanML at a base level, and not necessarily are represented in
higher level constraints either. I think we may need to scope out a
"mapping/transformation" deliverable as part of HumanMarkup (as if we don't have
enough ;-))...nonetheless, as Len mentioned, we are building for a future...a
future which may take 10 years to see the final implementation.
I propose the following...
HM.Requirements:
HumanML must represent, in an explicit and
clear fashion, the values as they make sense to the conveyers themselves
themselves, as best as possible within the limits of XML design...no one else
needs to be consulted, or should be consulted, except the designated authority
creating these self-definitions.
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 5:27
PM
Subject: RE: HM.VR_AI: Goals and Overview
: HumanML_VR_AI Facilitator
Of
course the dilemma there is secondary receivers (or multiple receivers past
the intended receiver). For example, the word "crusade" has a
loose meaning in the west. To a person from the Middle East, it
has a pejorative or emotional meaning. So code lists are developed that
have
cultural attributes. This means the sender tries to ascertain the
use of the code in each view (where the view is an aggregation of
culture, history, etc.) and the receiver attempts to determine the
scoping of the original message (intent: was it local meaning of sender,
or
was it intended to inflame the secondary receiver). For example,
one can envision an interface in which a gesture or word is expressed
in a
view consisting of personal time, historical time, culture, etc.
joined to a set of all possible receivers ranked by the intention of the
sender for a given receiver to get this message in primary or secondary
roles (or any set of roles you can envision). This would return
a
graph where that gesture is the topic and all of the receiver interpretations
are linked nodes with some visualization technique
(say
color coding) that ranks the interpretations according to some other dimension
(criticality, danger, affinity, whatever). This
would make it possible to explore different interpretations and pick
one that meets the local politic. Remember, the system doesn't
find
a "true" meaning; it enables one to choose a meaning.
In a
more formal communication, say a process constrained set of messages, one
creates a protocol. This means that the potential
interpretations and the potential receivers are much more limited
enabling a much more predictable behavior as long as everyone
sticks to the a priori rules for the protocol. Such
contract-constrained communications usually include a phase similar to
what
is described above in which a set of message types are proposed, contracted,
and limited in the interpretation such that
the
response behavior can be observed and validated as belonging to an acceptable
range. Otherwise, if outside the range,
the
system punts to a negotiation node to enable it to determine the next
move.
len
I should clarify
that we will need support for both a numeric (not Borg only)
value, AND human readable value. But the values need to "mean"
something tangible across all human cultures as Len mentions.
|