Re: HM.VR_AI

[Rob Nixon <robnixon@execpc.com>]

I don't see how we can "completely" divorce ourselves from how apps designers
will think about HumanML (being a hard core apps designer myself), 
I may require a bit of "training" to pull out of that  mode. 
The way I look at things, is that if a language does not allow for those
things I need to (or want to) do, I'm not going to bother with it regardless
of how noble the cause.  I hope that we remain "cognizant" of how
complex HumanML may have to be in order to be of real value.  "We"
are, after all about the most complex system going...

Yes, this should be discussed in a requirements thread.

Thanks Rex for the refocus,

Rob
 
 

Hmmn, A rewind may be in order here. I think we need to discuss requirements in a requirements thread, and I should have made that distinction way back when Ranjeeth spoke of a litmus test of what is within the purview of HumanML in relation to VR_AI: Goals and Overview. Unfortunately, I was so pleased at the prospect of a genuine argument over values and datatypes that I neglected to point that out. When I responded to Len's request for clarification, I said that HumanML needs to look to such areas as VR and AI, (as well as all others that we identify as important), for THEIR requirements of HumanML, and see if we can accommodate them or at least not create vocabularies that contradict them. Somehow that got to a discussion what is allowable as HumanML. I think we ought to be careful of where we jump, as into conclusions, and mea culpa, me too. IMHO, we're trying to do something we should not be doing when we get into thinking about specifying primary, let alone secondary, audiences for HumanML. Isn't that the realm of apps builders? Ciao,Rex At 6:03 PM -0400 10/8/01, Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga wrote:

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 -----

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len)

To: Rob Nixon

Cc: Rex Brooks ; Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga ; OASIS Comment

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Nixon [mailto:robnixon@execpc.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 4:03 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: Rex Brooks; Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga; OASIS Comment
Subject: Re: HM.VR_AI: Goals and Overview : HumanML_VR_AI Facilitator

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.

  

--

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.comTel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request