[humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Updated Draft ofRequirementsDocument

[Rex Brooks <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>


--