Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: the current concerns.

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

> Can we break this down and have those of you who have
> strong preconceived ideas as to what HumanML "should"
> be and what it "shouldn't" be, shed some light on the subject
> beyond what is currently available.

Good idea.

Actually, Len's recent comments have been the most telling. I feel that we
have a set of systems designers here, and that we're retrofitting our
verious domains of experience onto a kind of communicative matrix. In other
words, as Len said, we're developing methods of getting "human => machine
=> human" comunication working, by enhancing the links therein. That is wha
I feel HumanMarkup should be doing, but AFAICT it isn't. It's cool that Len
responded to the criticism in that way... I guess he knew that it would get
to me :-)

What Len, and what you're all missing, is use cases and practical examples.
You overlooked the business model for so long that when you worked out that
you need one, I think you all panicked, and just wrote down some initial
random thoughts: plays, avatars, psychotherapy... aaargh, what else? I
think that one of the things that HumanMarkup shouldn't be is a group that
has to constantly invent excuses for why it exists. And let's face it,
that's what happened.

HumanMarkup received a lot of criticism at the very beginning because it
didn't seem to be chartered to do anything, and then on the other hand you
had the junk about "encoding LOL in machine readable formats", and stuff
started going AWOL from then on in. Perhaps you needed the business plan to
impress OASIS that you were doing something worthwhile? I'm not sure, but I
don't think that you should have needed to do so.

Len's 10 year estimation may have been a bit off, and this is why: there
are already people working in similar system design domains, but the whole
thing is so ephemeral. There are producets and useful pockets of work that
can be addressed right now, but instead, people seem to be concentrating on
these excuses.

Perhaps that's a glib interpretation of the situation, or perhaps it's just
wrong? But that's one way in which I'd plan to pull HumanMarkup out of the
rough (it's the "listen to Len" plan).

> I know what I need to communicate between the types
> of systems I work on,  I'm interested in how this can be
> meshed with something like HumanML.

HumanML is probably the best solution for you, but you wouldn't call it
HumanML :-)

Cheers,

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