[humanmarkup-comment] RE: HumanMarkup: Paved With Good Intentions

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Manos,

Thanks for getting back to us. I replied to Sean's post, but just 
barely, because most of what he said is true but only AS FAR AS IT 
GOES, which, as with your more approachable and more specific points, 
can't actually be countered, but only acknowledged. It was neither 
dismissal nor ignoring it.

  I don't disagree, but I have had to accept that a lot of what you 
and Sean point out is, unfortunately, only solvable by the active 
participation of individuals willing to stick up for what they 
believe and want to accomplish. I certainly can't do it for you. 
Also, since I don't fully agree, but rather think that there is room 
for all, it would be (fill in the blank, I don't care to invite 
flames) ______ for me to attempt to make your points for you in your 
absence or do the work only you can do. Right now I am trying to get 
a new ISP with MSXML4 or who will allow us to use it, so that your 
hard work can be made available to all of us. That is also far from 
the only such effort currently under way. Neither you nor Sean nor 
anyone else who participated from the beginning (which I couldn't do 
because I didn't even become aware of this effort until March) can 
know about such behind-the-scenes efforts unless you continue to work 
behind-the-scenes.

Also, I think that insisting on just one approach as the only way 
things can work doesn't usually accomplish much either, besides 
alienating those who disagree. Also, the facts are that the work will 
only get done by those who are willing to do the work, even if it 
means some sacrifice of other pursuits in order to get that work 
done, so if it doesn't reflect what we want we only have ourselves to 
look to.

Sean did, however, take the time to make some actual attacks and 
engage in derogation, which I simply don't understand. Whenever I see 
that kind of behavior, the first thing I think is that the person 
doing it can't manage to see through to the issues and wants only to 
tear down not build, because that is the actual effect of such 
behavior. It never achieves anything, but it does distract other 
people into emotional reactions that prevent work from getting done. 
Since you don't do that, I'm responding to your post as intelligently 
and as thoughtfully as I can. Hopefully you see the difference.

It would be very inappropriate if you, now the only qualified person 
to handle the important RDFS work, were to also abandon us, but if we 
then suffer for your lack, there is little any of us can. I can't. 
I'm not qualified. I know my limitations and I don't attempt to do 
things I'm aware that I'm not suited to do.

One thing that you and Sean and not taking into account with your 
valid criticisms is that we are now having to redo a lot of work and 
engage in repeat discussions with qualified people who were not 
around the first time but who have something significant to 
contribute. Simply reading the digests is not sufficient to 
understand how we got to some of our conclusions.


At 12:31 PM +0300 10/10/01, Manos Batsis wrote:
>Before I go on, I would like to thank the people of this list that
>posted their comments to www-patentpolicy-comment.
>
>I am very sad to say I agree with all of Sean's points and more.
>
>It strucks me to see how the list "ignores" Sean's resignation. Sean has
>been by far the most advanced technical expert of this group.

I'm not going to engage in the same pointless expression of 
frustration, but whether from his expertise or personal 
idiosyncrasies some of Sean's posts were nearly indecipherable, but I 
usually attributed my own lack of understanding to my own 
limitations. However when we work in groups we have to make 
allowances for the abilities of our fellows.

>It seems that the majority of the list cannot comprehend that markup
>like <happiness level="someValue"/> is complete and *explicit* junk (I
>never understood how one could *ever* reduce miscommunication by putting
>an explicit value to express something even the person is experiencing
>it cannot fully grasp and describe). Furthermore, emotions are hardly
>the critical issue in communication these days.

We can't dictate to others what their interests should be. You 
counter this sort of thing by proposing your own more focused and 
technically advanced, and USEABLE work, rather than simply saying, 
"Oh this is hogwash!"

>The list, for quite some time, is stuck on conversations and random
>ideas on "emotions", "emoticons", "gestures" etc. All these, would fit
>in a markup that could be named cartoonML. The list is continuously
>focused on what I have kept calling rendering layer, which is irrelevant
>to our scope.

Actually comicML is something that exists and is quite useful. I 
refer you to our digests on the topic.

>The list as I see it is divided into two parts. Half of us think through
>XSD: Explicit mapping of concepts to elements/attributes, datatyping,
>vocabulary design. The "descriptive" vocabulary discussed here is, IMHO,
>useless, complex and not extensible. Although this part of the list is
>by far the most active, the only thing I would like to keep from this
>activity (and I'm not sure I want to do that either, I would be happy to
>find a way to ban literals from the HumanML core. Still, they are
>unavoidable in implementations) is datatypes.

I think you are wrong. For my purposes, virtual reality-human 
simulation, accurate description is absolutely necessary. However the 
fact that I think you are wrong doesn't mean that I think you are 
deficient in understanding. It means we have a disagreement and there 
is plenty of room for both of our positions.

>  >From time to time, Sean, me and many others have tried to turn this
>group towards the only possible technical approach, which is RDF(S) and
>extensions to these. The idea, again, is to build a set of tools in the
>form of properties that will enable one to build a custom classification
>system for a specific purpose, based on our vocabulary (meaning the
>properties, core classes, etc) that will be build on top of RDF(S),
>DAML+OIL, DC (well, a modificated version, Dublin core has flaws) etc.
>In other words, use RDF as a shortcut (it is one of the few well defined
>models suitable for our purpose, if others exist) and build our model
>one level on top of it. Then implementors could just use our HumanML
>core to do whatever. In short, HumanML will be a metalanguage. Most of
>the people in this list use XML to build vocabularies. Well HumanML will
>be used (heh, if ever) to build classifications of meaning definitions,
>vertical most of the time.

You are misguided when you attempt to "turn the group..." You can 
only add your own contribution. I know you well enough to know that 
you are not out to dominate or control the group or the process, and 
I think you just haven't thought through the consequences of trying 
to get a group to go along with your program. Human Markup can't 
belong to a philosophical camp or technical methodology. I happen to 
think that RDF is by far the most useful schemata around and will, 
eventually, prove out. I just don't have the skills or the time to 
concentrate on it now.

>Another flaw, in our organizational level, is rush. Dates of useless
>deliverables and tons of documentation around our random thoughts. I
>guess the internet does this to you as well.

This is true, but unavoidable. It's just the way things work. We 
either make the deadlines or we postpone them. Setting them isn't 
stupid. It's expected. In my 30+ years of working life, I haven't met 
a deadline that actually was set in stone.

>Finally I'd like to say, or rather, admit that since I was one of the
>three initial proposers along with Ranjeeth and Joe, with the extra
>responsibility of being more technical oriented than they where back
>then, it's probably my fault more than anyone else's. I must admit that
>ironically, in a group that tried to reduce miscommunication, I have
>failed to keep the connection alive between the core members and the
>worst part is that some of the reasons of this where completely
>personal.
>
>If there are people in this list that agree or disagree with me, it
>would be a good time to show it. It is a rather critical point for
>HumanMarkup. Better late than never...

I appreciate hearing from you and I hope you understand that while I 
disagree with some of what you have said, I agree with most.

>Always with my kindest regards,
>
>Manos
>
<snip>

Ciao,
Rex
-- 
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