RE: HM.VR_AI: Goals and Overview : HumanML_VR_AI Facilitator

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Title: RE: HM.VR_AI: Goals and Overview : HumanML_VR_AI Facil

Okay, I see that we need to be cognizant of, and provide for, primary and secondary audiences, if the requirement is clear from the intended apps arenas. However, I don't think we should be defining what those primary and secondary audiences are. That's information we need to gather.

One point that I think needs to be taken from this particular thread is that HumanMarkup on its own can't DO anything and when we think we can, we get off track. I went through this for almost two months before it finally got through my thick head that we are not modeling human behavior, thought, sensory channels, psychology, sociology, history, religion, economy, etc, etc. We are making a markup language that will be able, hopefully, to model those things if needed, but is aimed primarily to improve communication.

Understanding the requirements of VR and AI are especially significant to this process, as is understanding the requirements of Physical Description, the requirements for accurately addressing the various levels of Identity, the requirements for providing a framework that allows members of cultural communities to build the descriptions of those cultures in their own context and in the context of the larger human community and the requirements of such mundane associated technologies as topic maps, ebXML and UBML.

As Rob pointed out, we are the most complex set of tasks and goals around. So getting off track can be very dangerous for our effort. If there is one key concept we need to be aware of, beyond that fact the HumanML can't do anything on its own besides be a symbol of an effort, of course, it is that One Size Does Not Fit All.

Ciao,

Rex

At 8:09 AM -0500 10/9/01, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> It depends on what the scope of human communication
> is.  Primary and secondary audiences are
> a straightforward problem, though.  Each is still
> a receiver with an identity, location,
> etc.  There
> are the meanings they associate with some given token
> (signal, sign, symbol) and there are
> the potential transformations along the path on that
> which can alter the intended meaning.  
> We
> don't specify those, but we may need to provide a
> means by which such can be documented
> or modeled.
>  
> I agree, the customer's requirements for the language
> must be understood.
>  
> len
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> >  
> > 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?

-- 

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request