RE: [humanmarkup-comment] HM.diplomatic_communications.requiremen ts

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Title: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] HM.diplomatic_communications

A requirements document would be a good idea. I would hope that it would concern itself with a survey of the field as currently taught and practiced--and perhaps finding someone to be an advisor would probably be a good idea, too. Finding out what the experts want or need is a pretty decent way to ensure that our work will be relevant, but then I always try to find somebody else to do the work, not that it succeeds very often, but I try. The thing about getting people to chat about what they are doing and perhaps have a passion for is that most people don't get that chance all that often. So they tend to be willing to talk if someone is willing to listen. :)

Ciao,

Rex

At 1:00 PM -0500 8/21/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> First, cultures, media types, ideologies, etc. are
> domains of codes. 
> One can define the domain in terms of its codes. 
> Code systems
> are synonymous with vocabularies.
> Codes have sign systems that have both signs and rules
> for combining
> the signs correctly.   The rules include
> structural rules (grammar, syntax)
> and linguistic rules (which combinations of signs make
> "sense" or
> convey a useful relationship).
>  
> One has to note that analysis of communication
> behavior, that is to infer intent, requires
> analysis of the source's decisions of code choices,
> perhaps within the framework of
> the communication protocol, or in short, why was a
> particular code or sign 
> chosen among others.  A coding protocol
> sets expectations and the
> the codes used should not violate expectations. 
> If they do, then it is time to
> evaluate and perhaps, renegotiate.   At the
> very least, a surprise should be
> responded to with "What?" unless conveying
> surprise is part of the
> code.  Otherwise, surprise creates semantic
> noise.  
>  
> Aspects of code use that can create semantic noise are
> such things as:
>  
> 1.  Competence.  Is the code user capable of
> using the code correctly
> (according to the rules for the code).  
> This is both selecting the
> correct code and interpreting a code
> correctly.
>  
> 2.  Emphasis.  Is the code emphasizing the
> right part of the message.
>  
> 3.  Attitude toward other party(ies).  Does
> the attitude of the user include such
> preconceptions
> as dominance over the receiver or vice
> versa?
>  
> 4.  Attitude toward message.  Perceived
> value of message.
>  
> First you need the codes themselves.   The
> use of HumanML should enable
> the formal construction of these codes with container
> domains that can
> be invoked to create the right "inflection"
> for the message as well as
> aid in interpretation and
> analysis.
>  
> len
> > From: Joseph Norris
> > [mailto:jwnorris@humanmarkup.org]
> > Dear Ranjeeth and
> > Everyone,
> >  
> > I think should start DipCon
> > work by drafting a formal requirements document. The rationale
> > for this is twofold: 1) we can jumpstart new research and collate
> > older work and 2) we can assure that the needs of DipCon work are
> > taken into consideration.
> >  
> > Ranjeeth's discussion about
> > the complexities of processing, tagging, and interpreting intentions
> > is a good example of how we need to concurrently harmonize
> > expectations of the main body of current research (eg Base Schema)
> > with the future needs of DipCon.

-- 

Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com