RE: [humanmarkup-comment] HMU.newmedia: Emotion

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Given the under-resourced condition and the preliminary 
status, I don't think it advisable to get into formal 
testing.  What would be sensible at this time would be 
for any person with a use case to state that and solicit 
feedback from the group on how they might being to apply 
the schema.  

Right now, it won't support a process model 
directly.  There are no sequencing concepts.  I had planned 
to put one in but haven't done so yet.  What I had envisioned 
was a simple adaptation of an IDEF0 or IDEF3 process model 
in which a process is a recursive element that enables the 
user to create a model of inputs (signals, symbols, signs) 
and outputs with routing targets.   How such a model 
would then be handled by a different system (say, VRML,
SVG, HTML etc) would be a matter of transformation.  
The reason I bring up the real time model is because 
it is well suited to dynamic state models and one can 
forgo some of the kinds of heavy math suggested by 
other models.   That may be overkill.  We don't need 
to model real time systems; we need to be able to feed 
them.  However, I think beyond simple classification, 
our current schema draft will become inadequate 
quickly.

It is certainly possible to build in weights; on the 
other hand, that may be something only the downstream 
system cares about.  That is why I asked about the 
UofPenn remarks about intensities being inadequate. 
In either case, for emotions, one has to always deal 
with these as internal states or events that cause 
changes in physiology and choices of actions.  One 
can't send an emotion as a message externally.  One 
of the papers cited this morning summarized: 

(condensed) "emotions arise in unusual or pressing circumstances, where
there is a large demand put on the system's resources. 
Only if the fixed-reaction proves not to work, or it can be predicted that
it will not work, or the 
confidence that it will work is low, or the agent perceives that it has
little control; only 
then does an emotion arise. Its purpose is to arouse the whole system
(Oatley & Johnson-Laird's non-propositional signals) 
to deal with the problem. The fixed-action was the easy option, so always
tried first, and presumably consumes 
few resources. But when the whole system is aroused, and all its attention
is claimed, then clearly the problem 
is consuming far more...this also accounts for the general physiological
arousal"

A process model (a model of inputs, outputs, controls, 
mechanisms) is not a dynamic model.  That is important 
to understand.  It is almost a simple schematic.  Trying 
to model a human object per se, requires a real time 
modeling system and for that, systems such as scene graph 
designs are better (routing typed events into and out of 
objects that have script nodes, methods, etc).  These are 
simulation modelers and might or might not contain a 
visualization component, but underneath, have similar 
components for event routing.
 
XML, ie, DOM, is not appropriate for that; XML 
is appropriate for feeding that.  We have had a long and 
arduous time getting that across in X3D and should not 
repeat those mistakes here.  I'm wandering a bit too  
but I don't want people to confuse HumanML as a mark up 
for a real time model of a human. 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]

No, I don't think you are contradicting the original models, and I
think the notion of testing is important.

This brings up the notion of a standard methodology for obtaining
requirements from application areas, testing the schemata to see how
what we have fills the requirements. I know I'm drifting afield of
the specific topic of emotions. I think we may want to test our
schemata to see if we can produce a viable process model for each set
of requirements that are brought in.

I'm just thinking out loud here. Does this sound reasonable?

Following up: Emotions are processed in a number of different ways
over time, both as a single emotional response to a specific
stimulus, and how that response is viewed or reviewed later, or how
it is viewed in context, say, if it is embedded as a tagged anecdote
in a report, when a summary of a set of similar reports is digested,
containing a number of instances of such tagged anecdotes. Do we need
to accommodate weights of collective emotional responses?