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

["Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>]

Hi Manos,

> [...] www-patentpolicy-comment.

Woo, 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.

I reckon that most people would be shocked to find out that I was a TC
member in the first place :-)

I'm sad to see that you agree with me, because it reinforces my belief that
my comments were correct, and that HumanMarkup is going down the tubes, as
it were. But from a different angle, I'm delighted that you agree with me,
because it means that we can start to work towards solutions. The word
"agree" in the sentence above was exactly the "ah" that I was looking for
that I have already commented on, and for that Manos, I thank you. I should
note that the word "disagree" would have had exactly the same effect...
IOW, I wrote the article from the POV that I feel there is a problem with
HumanMarkup. The seondary problem was that no one cared that there was a
problem with HumanMarkup, and the secondary problem annoyed me more than
the primary one... silly me.

> Sean has been by far the most advanced
> technical expert of this group.

Han, I think (hope) I've been the most objective, but that's probably not
the same thing.

> It seems that the majority of the list cannot comprehend that
> markup like <happiness level="someValue"/> is complete
> and *explicit* junk

Yes! Actually, I remember that you have said exactly this to me on many
separate occasions, so I can vouch that this isn't a knee-jerk reaction to
the article. In fact, your comments have often been a source of
inspiration, and I've been a little upset to see less and less
participation from you in HumanMarkup... Man, I am I ever hypocritical...

> 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).

Yes, I know what you mean... As I've stated before, the aim of the group is
to work out how the generic XML metasyntactic layer can facilitate
communication. That's such an ephemeral aim that it defies belief: and
further, it would seem to me that the intuitive answer to that would be "it
can't". Now, at this point, the TC members should be able to say, "well
actually, we have conducted months of research, and are actually finding
that there are certain application domains that can benefit from the
structure of XML, and that a HumanMarkup framework would actually be
beneficial, and here is our documentation to prove it". But instead, all
the TC members can say is, "well actually, we have conducted months of
research". Yuck :-)

I must admit that it takes a certain amount of skill to talk utter bollocks
for months on end, but it's not a useful skill. The more useful skill is in
regnognizing that the junk may have some value after all, extracting that
value, and displaying it for the world to view. I do not posess that skill,
and I envy those that do. HumanMarkup, right here right now, needs those
sort of people.

There's good work on the lists, but it needs people with a lot of time on
their hands to sit down and untangle it. I'm ashamed that I don't have the
time or the skill to be able to do that (for skill, read: patience), but I
hope I'm good in shouting at people 'till someone does do it :-) There's a
word for it... er... ah yes, "cowardace". Oh, well.

> The list is continuously focused on what I have kept
> calling rendering layer, which is irrelevant to our scope.

If you could be certain that people had read this message, it may be
sufficient to write "rendering: irrelevant" at the top of every email that
you send :-)

> 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.

Actually, I think that there are more factions on the list, but you've got
the right idea, IMO.

> The "descriptive" vocabulary discussed here is, IMHO,
> useless, complex and not extensible.

I am of that humble opinion, too.

> Although this part of the list is by far the most active, the
> only thing I would like to keep from this activity [...] is
> datatypes.

Ah, I wonder if you've been reading the ongoing discussions of
www-rdf-logic! Yes, datatypes are a bit of a mess, but I think that they
will be resolved in due course, and that it is safe to at lest define them,
if not yet use them. There's always a lot of prattling about the menaing of
meaning on the RDF lists, and I think that the recent datatype discussions
have just been an alternate manisfestation of that. FWIW, we implement
datatypes in EARL, and no one has criticized us for doing so.

> 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.

On a slightly different subject, there are two really important and cool
things that I remember happening in this group. The first was when we were
all discussing the relationship between XSD, XML, instance layers, RDF, RDF
Schema, datatypes, UML, and so on, and the second was when we were
discussing RDF and the Semantic Web. I really enjoyed both of those
discussions, and felt that they were really productive. It's a shame that
they didn't last, and it's interesting that in all reality they were
directly in scope for this group. Perhaps they should have been? Perhaps
they are? Actually, that really intregues me.

> 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, [...]

Interesting. Have you managed to outline this idea in full anywhere? If
not, I think that you should do so: and rather than just emailing to the
list where everyone will forget about it, you could publish it on the site.
I can't really comment on the idea until I have understood it...

> 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.

Hmm... a metaontology for communicative characteristics? Have y'all seen
the work of SUO? They're years ahead, and at the same time, years behind...

http://suo.ieee.org/

Worth looking into.

> [...] Dates of useless deliverables and tons of
> documentation around our random thoughts. I
> guess the internet does this to you as well.

Yeah. The deliverables list is just nuts. The first deliverable should be,
"why do we need a deliverables list, and what should it be like?". When you
say, "get the HumanML.frameworks doucment out by such and such a date" I
can tell immediately what's going to happen: it's either not going to be
done, or when it is, it will be irrelevant. The best thing is to capture
the topic of current discussion and make it useful.

> Finally I'd like to say, or rather, admit that
> [lots of self-criticism snipped]

I blame everyone!

> 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 agree, I agree!

> Always with my kindest regards,

Manos, it is always so refreshing to read your comments! Many thanks.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .