RE: [humanmarkup-comment] HM.EndUserSurvey proposal

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

Ensure that the foreward enables them to take an application perspective. 

If it is too windy, they think we are social workers.   Identifying the

shareable models of human communications in different application

contexts, though a tough nut, is one that is useful.   It is important

to convey that the model(s) will be reusable without having to swallow

all of HumanML.   For example,  UBL might take advantage of only a

small piece of HumanML and ignore say the as-yet-undeveloped

process model.   We just don't know yet, so we are asking.  You

can include examples of areas where we are ourselves vague and

give them a hint that there are still victories to be had by those who

need them.   HumanML is not just, "a smiley language" but we

aren't afraid to tackle that; in fact, find that to be the trivial part

of the work.  It is much harder when humans *aren't smiling*.

 

 :-)

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Norris [mailto:jwnorris@humanmarkup.org]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:06 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); OASIS Comment
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] HM.EndUserSurvey proposal

Len and everyone,

 

Thanks for the input. A major focus of our outreach efforts if to pick the brains of a lot of folks from various backgrounds (viz. the purpose.) Of course we can word that in more appropriate manner. ;)

 

For the brief description of HM, perhaps we can use the mission statement.