[humanmarkup-comment]

[rexb@starbourne.com]

First, thanks for jumping in. The more eyes/minds on our work the better it will
be in the end.

At 11:38 PM -0700 3/18/02, cognite@zianet.com wrote:
$$$$$$$$$$$$  This might be worth adding:

The HumanML Human Markup comes about in aid of fomenting accurate
communication, for which CULTURAL characterizations will be included,
at an abstract level in Primary and more concretely in Secondary Schemas.

I think it may be valuable to add a bit more explicit language tying cultural
characterizations into our basic statement of goals and objectives. The primary
and secondary distinctions are set to superset, with primary being fundamental
or the foundation on which the superstructure of the secondary is built.

The culture-characterization portion of Primary HumanML markup purports to
describe types of cultural features; Secondary schemas expand them in
characterizing particular cultures.
Cultural characterization that bears on communication will be emphasized.

(Do I have the "will" right, or should it be "should"?)

$$$$$$$  THE RATIONALE FOLLOWS. 

This suggestion arises from pondering the exchange between Rex and Ranjeeth,

where Rex says:

>Here are my replies. This is good debate. I hope more people jump in

Specifically:
At 07:02 PM 18-03-2002 GMT, you wrote:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:51:34 -0800
>From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
>Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Updated Draft of
> RequirementsDocument
>To: rkthunga@humanmarkup.org
>Cc: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Message-id: <a05100301b8bbd1d85d22@[192.168.123.136]>
>At 10:22 AM -0500 3/18/02, Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga wrote:
>>comments in angle bracket <me> tags:

Rex:
>>This document specifies goals, requirements, and usage scenarios for
>>the various levels of the Human  Markup Language: HumanML Schemas
...

======= INTERPRETATION of the above:  We are working to document goals of
the markup
conventions, which have various descriptive levels, to be specified.

=============> According to the discussion excerpted just below:
         A basic of what HumanML is to be for is the description
of Human endeavors "to understand ourselves and our place in the universe",

i.e., HumanML is to help characterize what people/agents are doing and
explaining to each other. 

>>
>>"Human"
>>
>>When enclosed in double quote marks, as above, it is used as a name
>>for what the HumanMarkup Initiative aims to encapsulate into
>>HumanML. Used thus, this term transcends reference to any single
>>biological entity or to the collective biological species of Homos
>>Sapiens, and is inclusive of all self- to species-conscious effort
>>throughout our history to understand ourselves and our place in the
>>universe.
>>
Ranjeeth says:
>><me>"This term refers to any anthopormorphic biological entity",
>>would be a more parsimonious description,

"anthropomorphic biological entity" is flexible.
qualification. What happens to an AI agent that I want to give
>"Human" abilities and rights/perogatives to? What is religion if not
>a "Human" activity?

=========== STRUCTURE OF THE MULTILEVEL MARKUP SYSTEM
is another issue under discussion:

Ranjeeth says:
>>><me> HumanML Secondary schemata "should" be extensible enough so
>>>that developers can represent the human traits and characteristics
>>>they choose to represent</me>


Rex:
>>>----------------
>>>MODULARITY
>>>----------------
>>>HumanML will be organized into a Primary Base Human Markup Schema
>>>and Secondary Human Markup Schemata.
>>>
>>>
>>>The HumanML Primary Base Human Markup Schema "must" include a
>>>HumanIdentity Element that is compatible with and interoperable
>>>with the most widely accepted standards available.
>>>
>>>The HumanML Primary Base Human Markup Schema Human "must" include
>>>or add the necessary Elements and Attributes required to build the
>>>Secondary Human Markup Schemata.

========SC
The document says there are multiple levels; presumably Primary and
Secondary are the upper levels?  Assuming that, then what is their relation
to
each other?

I would say that there are really just the two, the basic or primary and the
extended or secondary. There may be a wealth of substructures within the extended
family of schemata that describe cultural modules, interaction modules, etc,
etc, etc.

The third excerpt just above seems to imply that the Primary is to be a
union of all Secondary labels.  But then it would change with every
implementation.  That would be inefficient.  But if, instead of in extenso
inclusion, Primary is more ABSTRACT
than Secondary.  It would be like a Class, with mixin attributes to further

specify
Secondary cases?  Then Primary is more INCLUSIVE than Secondary, which is more

SPECIFIC and describes DETAIL.

Yep. Somewhat inefficient, but useable, and I think it can be seen to be both
inclusive and abstract, at least it was meant to be so. Something I didn't want
to include in the Requirements Document which is about the language per se,
is that there must evolve a process whereby new basic elements/attributes are
adopted into the base schema for the sake of overall useability and to prevent
vocabulary conflicts.

What that process or procedure should be is more than I can encompass right
now.

The next question is, What sort of detail is Secondary describing?

Anything is the short answer. What works in practice is the actual answer. If
it works it will be used and we are very much oriented toward letting usage
determine as much as possible because it more accurately reflects the actual.
Like Science, we have to change our theory as evidence requires.

========/SC

>>>
>>>The HumanML Secondary Human Markup Schemata will include a Virtual
>>>Reality and Aritificial Intelligence Schema.

>>>
>>>The HumanML Secondary Human Markup Schemata will include a Human
>>>Physical Characteristics Description Markup Language Schema.

============== SC

Two disparate kinds of Secondaries are mentioned:
	- The VR and AI are implementation technique domains;
	- descriptors of realworld observables are of a different nature: empiricals.


These are just the secondaries that we have volunteers to work on. More will
come along, hopefully. It wasn't meant as a statement of theoretical preferences.


As for realworld observables relevant to communication, mention of
cultural characteristics is a major omission here.  They are probably
realworld observables, but not as simple as height, say.  More abstract.

Bingo! I could not agree more. I have, as I mentioned to you, been looking to
involve cultural anthropologists, so far with little success, outside of one
occasional contributor from Denmark. This is what we need most beyond what involvement
and participation we now have. If I could, I would like to see us involve more
academic departments, but time will tell.

Cultural characteristics like language, genre and role of interlocutors
directly affect the content of communications.  This is true in geolocal
communication, and especially true in the context of electronic communication

for which HumanML is being designed.  (In contrast, in this "disembodied"
communication, where interlocutors are in different places and/or times, the

looks of surroundings and interlocutors are less germane.  Then cultural
info clearly belongs to HumanML, and would presumably be more central to this

markup than description of Physical interlocutor and surround characteristics.


But do cultural descriptors belong under Primary or under Secondary? 

        o  In general, there will be many schemas of cultures, for there are

many
cultures. 
        o  Yet there may be thematic meta-features
that would belong in a class describing all or most cultures.  (Again this
is assuming that Primary is an abstraction rather than an in extenso
collection of attributes.)

The enabling vocabulary belongs in the Primary Base Schema--I take it this corresponds
to what you call meta-features, those characteristics which are generally common
to cultures per se, thus needed to build the cultural modules in the Secondary
Schemata category.

The conclusion, then, is that culture specifications belong under BOTH
Primary and Secondary types.

Yes.

With this rationale, we would be led to add something like the following
to the Requirements document for HumanML:

$$$$$$$$$$$$

The HumanML Human Markup comes about in aid of fomenting accurate
communication, for which CULTURAL characterizations will be included,
at an abstract level in Primary and more concretely in Secondary Schemas.

The culture-characterization portion of Primary HumanML markup terms
describe types of cultural features; Secondary schemas expand them in
characterizing particular cultures.
Cultural characterization that bears on communication will be emphasized.

$$$$$$$ 

Further specification that all this is in aid of electronic communication
in particular might be appropriate, if that is the case now and will be
later also.

SC


Yes and yes. The specific language meeds to be tweaked a little, but this is
all essentially correct, and needs to be included in the Requirements Document.
I tend to take it for granted since I have been so immersed in it, and parts
of these statements are included in the TC Charter and in other documents we
have worked on over the last year. So, I forget that this needs to be stated
clearly in the this document, too, and in some specific detail. I shall attend
to it soon.

I seem to have a rather full plate, but I will just work my way through it all.


Ciao,
Rex

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


http://www.starbourne.com