humanmarkup message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-channel and kinesthetic
- From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
- To: humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org, cognite@zianet.com, clbullar@ingr.com,kurt@kurtcagle.net, mbatsis@netsmart.gr
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:03:22 -0700
Title: PBS-Doc-channel and
kinesthetic
Hi Everyone,
I bet you all forgot how deeply we went into this element and the
notion of sensory channels and included a new element that we didn't
add to our list because we had not gotten the list going in earnest
yet, and since Len did a chunk of schema code for it, I will just
adapt that when I get there. This was a lengthy discussion, so you
might want to print it out.
Subject: [humanmarkup] Base Schema-channel
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:02:46 -0700
Hi Everyone.
I didn't want to let a week go by when
I didn't have a second or
third telecon to attend without
presenting the start of a new element
discussion. I realize it is the
Memorial Day Weekend Holiday in the
US, and web traffic and participation
is always much slower over a
weekend regardless of holidays, so I
don't expect a lot of responses
or replies over the weekend, but I
thought I would put it out there
in any event.
Also, please be advised that initiating
new element discussions is
mostly unrelated to on-going
discussions of previously introduced
elements. Starting a new thread does
not in any way mean that I think
any previous discussions are concluded.
So don't be surprised when I
return to bodyLocation next week, which
I plan to do at this point,
since I, at least, am far from finished
with it.
So, onward...
channel
This is a Complex Type with the
attribute of abstract, which to
reiterate, as I will continue doing,
means an element that cannot be
used directly but must be used as a
complexType derived from this
complexType. I will keep reiterating
this because it is important,
which in this case involves a
suggestion I want to make to broaden
the definition in this case, which
means it will include a larger
range of derived complexTypes.
It is described as Human Communication
Channel as senses or faculties
byt which a Human communicates a
message.
It is further specified that this
element is a member of the
xsd:attributeGroup referenced by
"humlIdentifierAtts strength" This
is a good place to note a difference
between and amongst the last two
elements. The element, bodyLocation,
was neither abstract, nor did it
take any attributes, and therefore no
value for the attribute nor an
attributeGroup association. That was a
large part of the reason why I
suggested a series of related elements.
I will return to that next
week.
My suggestion is that channel be
somewhat more explicitly defined so
that communication is understood such
that a channel represents the
ability to receive as well as to send a
message. While the dictionary
does include notions of sharing
information, the definitions are
preponderantly on the side of
transmitting more than receiving, and I
think that needs to be explicitly made
clear.
I actually have much more to say, but
this ought to be sufficient to
get the discussion started.
Last note for now: this is one of those
seriously overloaded terms
which I suspect we will have to append
our namespace prefix to:
huml:channel or else--
humanChannel.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: cognite@zianet.com, humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 05:44:02 -0700
Hi Everyone,
I'm baaaack. Lucky you <facetious
/>
Seriously, after quite a bit of water
under bridge, and a bit more
thought, I think we should refine
channel further, thus:
a sensoryChannel would be a conduit for
input information into a
human object, i.e. an instantiation of
the human element
a communicationChannel would be a
conduit of message-bearing energy
a signal would be message-bearing
energy (which we will still revisit
in order when we get there, realising
that it may be further refined
by that time.)
While it would be possible to derive
these from channel as it is
written in the straw man, I think it
would necessitate a third level
of abstraction as a secondary base
schema, so to speak, so what I
propose is that we take the time to
define some basic, if derived,
elements to avoid a secondary base
schema just for these top level
derivations. I do think that these
distinctions will turn up for many
of our singular base elements.
Thoughts?
Ciao,
Rex
At 3:05 PM -0600 5/24/02,
cognite@zianet.com wrote:
>Re "channel": to
sum up the analysis below based on prior work of the
>committee, we Might be able to
reduce to:
>
> a channel would
be a conduit of message-bearing energy. (concrete)
> a signal would be
message-bearing energy. (concrete)
>
> a message would
be ...? [presupposed
term, definition needed]
>
>But we need further info: How are
these supposed to be used in secondaries?
>Are these characterizations
sufficient for that?
>
>
>DISCUSSION:
>
>At 07:02 AM 24-05-2002 -0700, Rex
Brooks wrote:
>"
>It is described [in the StrawMan
draft] as Human Communication Channel as
>senses or faculties byt which a
Human communicates a message.
>
>....
>
>channel be somewhat more explicitly
defined so
>that communication is understood
such that a channel represents the
>ability to receive as well as to
send a message. While the dictionary
>does include notions of sharing
information, the definitions are
>preponderantly on the side of
transmitting more than receiving, and I
>think that needs to be explicitly
made clear.
>"
>
>This gives a picture on the order
of a channel as a transmission mode
>between sender and receiver,
right? Something like:
>
>
> :-| --- /
channel=?=method, location(s), time-lag,... ---> :-(
> ;-| ---
/" --->
8-)
> :-) ---
/" --->
:-)
> >:-(
---/" --->
:-(
>
>To the point, what is the
"channel" in each of these message
"transmissions"?
>(They move from traditional to
multimedia communication in several groupings.)
>
>- a conversation between people in
different rooms?
>- a face-to-face conversation?
>- a smoke signal? a mirror
signal? a satellite signal?
>
>(Note that receiving faculties are
not necessarily symmetrical with sending
>faculties. There may be
offset geoLocations. Conversations are not
>necessarily between only two
people. Does the channel exist independently
>of them?)
>
>
>- a phone conversation?
>- an answering machine message?
>- a hardcopy letter?
>- a printed book?
>- the transmission of a message by
email?
>
>(There may be offset
temporalLocations. Intermediaries, both "human"
body
>"faculties" and thru
tools: How much of the phone equipment/transmission
>constitutes "channel"?
Is the channel the same for nonwireless, cellular,
>satellite, CB, )
>
>
>- an instant replay (immediate,
delayed, repeated)
>- a RealPlay reception?
>- a program download?
>- a radio listener? (to canned,
live, and mixed programs, w/wo immediate
>direct personal access among
interlocutors)
>
>(Apprehension may be Very different
from 'sending'. Is reception required
>for a "channel" to
exist? Is apprehension/comprehension required? Is a
>message required?)
>
>To decide how huml wants to define
it, we need to answer some questions.
>
>What is the importance of
"channel" for the usability of our schema?
>Perhaps that it may limit message
types, and properties of the situation?
>....For instance the message from a
tenth repetition face-to-face and thru
>re-reading may change even with the
same signal and signal-sensors --
>because of memory, and related
effects on the parties' "faculties".... Has
>the "channel"
changed?
>
>How does this [information theory]
term relate to semiotics'? In
>particular, I'm curious as to its
relation to "signal".
>
>Our StrawMan inventory includes
"signal", so we have a good point of
>departure:
>
>"An interruption in a field of
constant energy transfer. An example is the
>dots and dashes that open and close
the electromagnetic field of a telegraph
>circuit. The basic function
of such signals is to provide ... the change of
>a single environmental factor to
attract attention and to transfer meaning."
>
>The word "transfer" here
for "signal" is akin to the
>"transmitting...receiving"
of "channel". The two seem therefore to be
>cross-referential, if not
overlapped.
>
>A minor point. The StrawMan
denomination of "signal" as "abstract"
>contradicts the concreteness of the
amperage pulses constituting dots and
>dashes. (Common usage in
physics and engineering is "signal" for concrete
>energy. So let's assume
that.)
>
>Communication "channels"
have become increasingly complex, as the set of
>examples above shows. In multi-mode
transmissions, the form the signal takes
>changes. For example, it
changes as it goes from mouth airwave vibrations
>to microphone to wires carrying
clipped electrical renderings ... to phone
>speaker at the ear. It is
transformed more times than in the simplest vocal
>communication.
>
>If the signal is the concrete form
of energy, then perhaps the "channel" is
>the energy conduit? The forms
taken by the signal and handled by the
>conduit must match all along the
way. Do we need an arbitrary limit on a
>channel's being external to the
body?
>
>So, to sum, what this seems to be
reducible to is:
>
> a channel would
be a conduit of message-bearing energy. (concrete)
> a signal would be
message-bearing energy. (concrete)
>
> a message would
be ...? [presupposed term, definition needed]
>
>Assessment points:
>
>Seems good that these are coherent
as a group, for the sake of consistency
>in a schema. In talking about
things we do seem to use the term "message" a
>lot. Is it a basic one? Anybody
have a good definition of "message" or some
>such?
>
>And -- How are these supposed to be
used in secondaries? Are these
>characterizations sufficient for
those uses? Are they the ones that would
>be easiest for people to use? If
not, what would be a propos?
>
>
>SC
>Hey, more questions, the research
endemic...but at least these are kinda
>specific ;)
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
cognite@zianet.com,humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 08:10:11 -0500
If the scope of HumanML is human
communication, sensoryChannel
describes the means of a human
receiving information.
What is the purpose of
communicationChannel? What I wish to
avoid is opening a very very very large
abstraction that
subsumes all manner of
communication.
Channel may be sufficient.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks
[mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
a sensoryChannel would be a conduit for
input information into a
human object, i.e. an
instantiation of the human element
a communicationChannel would be a
conduit of message-bearing energy
a signal would be message-bearing
energy (which we will still revisit
in order when we get there, realising
that it may be further refined
by that time.)
While it would be possible to derive
these from channel as it is
written in the straw man, I think it
would necessitate a third level
of abstraction as a secondary base
schema, so to speak, so what I
propose is that we take the time to
define some basic, if derived,
elements to avoid a secondary base
schema just for these top level
derivations. I do think that these
distinctions will turn up for many
of our singular base elements.
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex
Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
cognite@zianet.com,humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 07:06:15 -0700
Scope is a good point. There are
factors in any environment which
affect communications, and that is the
context question. So
information that is not necessarily
part of an intentional
communications session (including
unintentional messages), may
nevertheless have an impact. How that
information is received by a
human or agent and what that
information does to the human or agent
needs to be accounted for. That's the
reasoning behind my suggestion
for sensoryChannel, which absorbs any
information available.
So, a communicationChannel is the
output channel for transmitting signals.
An example where a sensoryChannel was
at play while a
communicationChanell was operating, was
the chat I had going with
Ranjeeth, while the WTC was collapsing.
It had a major effect and we
discussed it while it was happening,
but it was not in and of itself
a communication to us, though it could
be argued that it was a form
of communication apart from our chat.
However, the point is that it
affected us and our communication.
I admit it is not necessary to put
these elements into the base
schema since they can be simply derived
as abstractions from the
abstract channel element itself.
However, while the aim may be to
keep the base as small as we can, we
have this entire spectrum of
elements which will be used across a
multiplicity of secondary
schemata, and I think it would just be
helpful to have a common
element or set of elements for those so
that we can avoid the
problems of proliferation of possibly
conflicting vocabularies in
secondary schemata that use common
elements and needing a secondary
base schema to cover those so that they
are consistent across
secondary Human Markup Schemata.
I would like to keep the base as small
as we can, but if it leads to
conflicts, it won't be much use.
However, I am quite willing to be led
by a consensus on this.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex
Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
cognite@zianet.com,humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 07:06:15 -0700
Scope is a good point. There are
factors in any environment which
affect communications, and that is the
context question. So
information that is not necessarily
part of an intentional
communications session (including
unintentional messages), may
nevertheless have an impact. How that
information is received by a
human or agent and what that
information does to the human or agent
needs to be accounted for. That's the
reasoning behind my suggestion
for sensoryChannel, which absorbs any
information available.
So, a communicationChannel is the
output channel for transmitting signals.
An example where a sensoryChannel was
at play while a
communicationChanell was operating, was
the chat I had going with
Ranjeeth, while the WTC was collapsing.
It had a major effect and we
discussed it while it was happening,
but it was not in and of itself
a communication to us, though it could
be argued that it was a form
of communication apart from our chat.
However, the point is that it
affected us and our communication.
I admit it is not necessary to put
these elements into the base
schema since they can be simply derived
as abstractions from the
abstract channel element itself.
However, while the aim may be to
keep the base as small as we can, we
have this entire spectrum of
elements which will be used across a
multiplicity of secondary
schemata, and I think it would just be
helpful to have a common
element or set of elements for those so
that we can avoid the
problems of proliferation of possibly
conflicting vocabularies in
secondary schemata that use common
elements and needing a secondary
base schema to cover those so that they
are consistent across
secondary Human Markup Schemata.
I would like to keep the base as small
as we can, but if it leads to
conflicts, it won't be much use.
However, I am quite willing to be led
by a consensus on this.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: Rob Nixon <rnixon@qdyn.com>
To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 10:55:04 -0500
The only thing I'd add to this thread
is the need for something along the following
lines.
We are running a series of if-then
simulation scenarios. In one case, the
simulation carries through from it's
previous "restart" with information that it has
accumulated from it's previous runs.
(i.e. the 1990 simulation has restarted 3
times, so each virtual character would
have 3 mappings from virtual Jan. 1st to
"Human World"-real
time. Information and communication would be tied to a
dated
list :
sim1-01/01/1990:17:50:33->06/04/2002:06:23:05
sim2-01/01/1990:17:50:33->06/05/2002:12:43:04
sim3-01/01/1990:17:50:33->06/06/2002:14:06:39
The catch here is that information and
communications could be carried through from
the previous iteration and we'd need to
be able to roll back to the state of the
vchar at any given point in its
iterations but still be able to stamp the
communications with a local virtual (or
simulation) time.
I'm not entirely sure how much of a
problem this would be under the current
"channel".
Rob
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, cognite@zianet.com,'Rex
Brooks'
<rexb@starbourne.com>,"Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 12:26:33 -0400
Len,
You said:
*The issue is that all sensory channels
are input only. Human senses
are
sight
hearing
touch
taste
smell
We discussed a sixth sense to account
for intuition
but for the moment let's not just to
avoid the
philosophy debate about that.*
****
see copy of full message below.
****
Well the biological model will not
agree that all sensory channels are input
only.
In fact a great deal of the
experimental research in the several natural
sciences show that the sensory channels
of a human have an "endophysics"
that is NOT caused by input. First,
cause can be due to an environmental
affordance (ecological physics - as in
J. J. Gibson and the ecological
school of psychology at Univ of
Connecticut). Second there is the cause of a
thing on itself, without which quantum
mechanics seems to be shuck literally
with no change possible to the state of
the world. (A form of Zeno's
paradox.) These types of causes
are part of the sensory processing mechanism
in the quantum, bio-chemical,
structural levels of the human sensory
systems. (See also Visual
Intelligence, by Donald Hoffman, 1998 , Norton
and Company). In human memory
research, Schacter demonstrates that memory
is distorted and thus that our
perception of reality is not always an
accurate reflection of what is
experienced (input). etc etc...
The only way to account for this, i
think, is to regard physical reality as
being stratified into organizational
levels and to express these
organizational levels relative to
location.
This viewpoint is called relative
stratified complexity, and we feel that
this viewpoint accounts for more than
the Santa Fe Institute paradigm of
Complex Adaptive Systems, in that each
organizational level has a
substructural level and an ultra
structural level. (This is reflected in
the conceptually difficult requirement
that stratification be both universal
(as expressed in the work of Stanley
Salthe, "Development and Evolution"
1996 MIT Press) and relative (perhaps I
am the first to try to characterize
this as relative stratified complexity
- I am still looking for a best
notation on this).
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter1.htm (see
Process
Compartment Hypothesis)
Emergence is then of a composition of
material and causes (some of the
"causes" appears from nowhere
- such as free will and self orchestrated
collapse in quantum mechanics as
discussed by Penrose and Hameroff - see
Penrose - "Shadows of the Mind"
1994, Cambridge University Press); as well
as into an environment with specific
natural law. {If one is supposed to be
modeling the emergence of terrorism,
then one better have these class of
causes whose origin can not be
accounted for. Same is true for a buyer's
choice. One can not be Predictive and
have **Predictive Analytic
Methodology** or PAM (silly meaningless
acronym invented by marketing folks
in Industry) without accounting for
hidden causes. }
Such "stratified theory" is
reflected in the other scholars' works that I
reference in my book:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm
as a tri-level architecture for
formative ontology (based partially on
Russian quasi axiomatic theory and
semiotics.)
This notion "that all sensory
channels are input only" is the metaphysics
that we are talking about in ;
http://www.ontologystream.com/admin/KnowledgeNet.htm
where we are proposing a Knowledge Net
Consortium - in order to bring
forward a new type of IT that is not
in-consistent with what is actually
KNOWN in the natural science.
One can NOT standardize around this
concept, BECAUSE this concept does NOT
reflect the natural science on human
perception. (Well one can, but for
what purpose?)
***
An invitation is open, for those
interested, to join the bcngroup at
www.bcngroup.org and be part of this
new effort. I am in particular
interested in faculty comment from
University of Pennsylvania's Center for
Human Modeling and Simulation. I
would like to know if they are interested
in Human Information interaction
science as conceived in:
http://www.ontologystream.com/cA/papers/cA-SPS.htm
But back to Len's comments.
The so called sixth sense is mixed in each of
the five senses in a way that is not
reducible to precise quantification.
It may be nice for reductionism to act
as if these social mythologies about
human sensory input are the ultimate
truth about nature; but nature is just
not designed this way.
I have in my mind to try to contribute
to Rex's line of thought regarding a
channel as a indicator that there is an
active relationship between two
humans, but one must understand that
the best and leading science on
awareness has a lot of non-locality to
it. Perhaps this is important IF we
are going to act as if we are
talking about the mark-up of the
characteristics of real human behavior
as if human behavior where like a
html document.
I hope that the original thought behind
the topic maps distinction between
addressable and non-addressable
subjects will re-surface... and in this way
leads us back to the proper notion of
scope and viewpoint.
--
Paul Prueitt, PhD
CEO OntologyStream
703-981-2676
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: Rob Nixon <rnixon@qdyn.com>
To: paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 11:40:06 -0500
People forget kinesthetics ( body
position ) all the time. Even though some
people believe it to be controversial,
the Muscle Spindles and Golgi tendon
organs help provide the sensing
mechanism for body position. That is why when
your arm goes to sleep you can't tell
where it is....
So add kinesthetics to the list of
senses...
Rob
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rob Nixon' <rnixon@qdyn.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 11:24:20 -0500
The channel shouldn't know about time.
That is chronemic information.
A simulation (if I understand you)
defines a chronemic for a virtual
time with a begin and end value, or at
least a begin value (given
that the end time might be
indeterminate in some cases).
Channel is messy. At the barest,
it is just a connector for
routing events into (sensory).
The problem here is getting events out.
So Rex is considering naming sensory
and communication channels.
That seems to be overkill if the only
semantic the base needs
is in and out to indicate the
directionality of the message/event.
If sensory, we know we have five to six
types. For communication,
it is tough because we can have lots of
these. Is that a problem?
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rob Nixon' <rnixon@qdyn.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 12:21:50 -0500
Fair enough. So an element
type for that would not be abstract
and it will be a complex type.
So how to define that? The
properties might include a body part
name, a named body part location, a
movement, and the tension values
of musculature. In other words,
kinesthesia is a name for a kind
of experience, not just a set of
properties. The model is as you
say, built up over time, so these are
different for each person
and for each person given some
chronemic values.
How to account for dynamism? One
ends up creating a language
for it for which one might consider the
other values we
are talking about as parameters to pass
to the model.
We have been postponing the process
discussion. Maybe
we have to bring it forward.
Can we do it without
inventing YetAnotherOOPLang?
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Nixon
[mailto:rnixon@qdyn.com]
I'm talking about both. They are
closely related. The "perception" (feeling) of where
the body parts are, is the result of the signals received from Muscle
Spindles and Golgi tendon organs run through an "internal model"
of our bodies structure that has been built up over time. This
"model" changes
over time as our bodies change, so it
is a dynamic process.
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: Rob Nixon <rnixon@qdyn.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 12:33:08 -0500
Thanks Len, I sure hope so (Can we do
it without inventing YetAnotherOOPLang).
I'll have to run through some of the
notes on process dynamics that I've been accumulating over the years
to fill out the discussion as we go. Of course this ties in with
gestures and a whole slew of other things. I want to avoid getting
caught in a never ending "attractor" of "complication"
that pulls us
off coarse. So we'll have to
be careful. "Here be Dragons..."
Rob
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rob Nixon' <rnixon@qdyn.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 12:56:07 -0500
Yea verily.
One idea is to stay with a high
level
process description of ins, outs,
controls, mechanisms
from the venerable IDEF days.
Or maybe
just do an object messaging schema
without ... oh gad...
We did this in phase 0 as an exercise
and it
kept being pulled toward an
object-orientation
because it is a) known b) practiced c)
a nice
way to encapsulate complexity.
I can feel the fire... so difficult to
take
Ms Weasley's advice and not mess with
magical
artifacts that won't tell me where
their brains are.
I guess the first thing we need is a
problem statement
to get a requirement from. Care
to take a shot at
that off the cuff?
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Norm Badler' <badler@central.cis.upenn.edu>,Rex Brooks
<rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 13:53:38 -0500
Let's use that as the working
definition for kinesthetic in the schema for now.
len
From: Norm Badler
[mailto:badler@central.cis.upenn.edu]
I'll look at it tonight.
Meanwhile note that (the movie notwithstanding) the
6th sense is usually considered to be
kinesthetic: the understanding of the
internal state of the body -- where
one's body parts are relative to each
other and gravity (or other forces),
e.g., joint angles, proximities,
orientation. Touch includes
external perceptions such as contact, pressure,
and temperature; kinesthetics can also
include internal attributes such as
aches, pain, discomfort, pressure,
soreness, etc.
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>,'Norm Badler'
<badler@central.cis.upenn.edu>,"Bullard,
Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 15:38:01 -0400
When one moves into this definition of
Kinesthetic sense, one realizes that
this is largely a brain stem function
(or can be seen in this way). Pribram
clearly sees it in this way in his 1991
book, "Brain and Perception". But
one also sees that all of the senses
are mixed into an experience of world
that is unified.
The typical argument against a schema,
where the parts are treated as if
they can be removed from the whole, is
that this is a reduction of the
function of the part (hearing, for
example) as if hearing can be disembodied
from the living system and the other
senses. To a certain degree it can be,
but this disembodied understanding of
hearing becomes abstract and
theoretical - since hearing can only be
done by a living system.
The problem is not insignificant in
terms of the hoped for uses from a human
mark up standard involving schema and
crisp ontology.
Len, you are aware of these class of
problems (yes?). How might you address
the criticism (constructive I hope)
that you are seeing from my words?
I do have a proposal for how to address
these issues, but this proposal is
not so easy to state quickly and when
there is opposition to a non-crisp
non-reductionist viewpoint.
(Oh well, I will state anyway..
One might use a descriptive enumeration of
the qualities of human communication
and behavior, while stating that the
"meaning" of the schema are
left to an interpretation. This means that
scope and viewpoint are to be left
underconstrainted. Example: A sixth
sense might be used to talk about the
co-occurrence of an idea that is
patented at the same time by two
individuals who do not know each other and
have no common direct
friendships. The notion behind the patent is then
"sensed" by a sixth sense
that is tuned to the needs of the market.)
What is not a crisp ontology, but still
an ontology? Well perhaps a
ontology that is formative in the
specification having a late binding but
also in that the ontology is understood
to have an interpretation by a human
mind after all is said and done (this
is the core notion of applied
semiotics - if I understand this
correctly.)
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'paul' <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>, Rex Brooks
<rexb@starbourne.com>,'Norm Badler'
<badler@central.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 14:57:37 -0500
(There are lots of folks in the address
boxes from Paul's message.
Let me know who doesn't want to receive
this. I don't subscribe
to any but the comment list, so I don't
see parts of the conversation
and assume many have the same problem
of email overload.)
Thanks, Paul. This is
helpful.
The schema as a division into parts has
to serve multiple
purposes, the first being to name
entities to be manipulated,
and to provide a means to create
structures from these entities.
This is all artificial out of the box.
That it can't absolutely
represent a living organism or model it
in its complexity is the
well-known model problem aka,
"Words aren't what they represent".
However, a model as a tool has a
utility so as long as we agree
the model we are building has a utility
and we understand the
limits of that, I am not too disturbed,
but note that when
we started this project, I occasionally
exhorted some of the
more ambitious members to be leery of
overstating its capabilities,
particularly since we had nothing to
show. One might say at
this time, we are naming data of
interest without saying too
much about why it is interesting or to
what.
That the data is interpreted by the
application is a fundamental,
and I hope, doesn't have to be repeated
too often understanding.
That is really something I've often had
to state about XML and
markup systems in general: these
are data objects. Their
meaning is derived from their
application. I believe that
semiotics, with the notion of
interpretant, covers this, yes?
In some of the emails, I refer to part
of what we schematize
as observables. Observables
imply a viewpoint and the concept
that viewpoints have some virtual
aspects to them is not
unfamiliar. That belies a
behaviorist perspective and
we do have to get past that and also
enable a cognitive
perspective, else, we are not in a good
position to model
internal states except
mechanically.
From a perspective of application, I
tend to think of these
similar to the way a relational
database designer thinks
of a cursor or recordset: a value
(perhaps and object),
passed to a procedure or function where
the local system
(the function), does the work with the
data that function
is designed to do including perhaps,
returning a value
to the calling function. Yes,
that is a CS point of view,
but it is an implementation point of
view. To the degree
possible, we should design the primary
schema without too
much reliance on implementation
issues. I say that with
some tongue in teeth, knowing just how
hard that is to do.
But that's the gig... :-)
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rob Nixon' <rnixon@qdyn.com>, paul
<beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 15:42:06 -0500
We have to break a domain down to
schematize it. Emergent properties
arise out of controls over engaging
forces, if you like
the momentum metaphors. But
to get to that point, we need
the pieces first. One might think
of topics as emergent
but someone please show me how we model
that ex nihilo.
The problem of schematization is
breaking something down
into pieces that can't be assembled
into recognizable wholes.
We are boxing ourselves into corners.
That is
what boxes do; specify corners.
We will have to do this
often and sometimes throw away the
boxes until we
are able to create boxes that fit
together in
demonstrably useful ways.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Nixon
[mailto:rnixon@qdyn.com]
Again, just trying to make sure that we
aren't boxing ourselves into a corner as
we develop our schema. Many
people often try to break systems down into
isolated pieces, but we run into the
danger of missing the emergent properties
that arise out of the interactions that
form the "whole".
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
To: Humanmarkup-Comment
<humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>,"Bullard, Claude
L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 16:51:52 -0400
Len,
I am forwarding the conversation into a
small forum for reference, and
perhaps some comments will occur that
is relevant to the rather interesting
task that you and Rex brooks are
engaged in (along with a few others).
Please forward to those in your circle
who might be interested.
NIMA (National Image and Mapping
Agency) has a BAA out for applied research
on a "Glass Box" for
intelligence vetting. I can send the BAA (.pdf file)
if anyone wishes. This is
non-classified work.
My working paper on this is at:
http://www.ontologystream.com/cA/papers/cA-SPS.htm
The proposal is almost finished with
the accountants at SAIC.
It is on detecting events in
computational spaces as part of an
action-perception cycle involving
humans. Of course the kicker is in what
to do in interactions with humans if an
"synthetic intelligence made of
computer programs and algorithms"
detects interesting events.
What I have here is something that
might be complex, in the sense that the
humans in the loop would see the
computer doing things that involved an
complex interior, much the same as if
interacting with a human (almost). We
have coined the term "Knowledge
Operating System".
My interest in a state - gesture game
(simulation) in which the
representations of the behaviors of
humans are encoded into schema is shown
in a number of my papers. One can
imagine that entertainment-type computer
games will be one consumer of a human
factors mark up schema standard.
Stratified theory (and the tri-level
architecture) would have each of these
schema form out of a process of
assembly (of something) in the context (of
something). This is the process
model for a "formative topic map" that I
had hoped would be developed by the
topic maps group. (Sigh...) "My" work
is strongly influenced by Russian
semioticians Pospelov and Finn.
My question is about if there is anyone
who might like to work on this with
my group. The Prime is SAIC, but
I have scientific control over the
project... (at least as much as the
system might allow).
The science advisors are: Drs.
Peter Kugler (psychology and computer
science), Karl Pribram (it is his 1991
book that motivates much of the deep
theory that I have advanced), Daniel
Levine (leader in the neural networks
community and one of the early
Grossberg PhDs), Richard Ballard (Founder of
Knowledge Foundations Inc. and
developer of many knowledge base systems),
and Robert Shaw (leader in the
ecological psychology community).
Additional science advisors (human
factors... human mark-up) might be added
if we felt that there is a common sense
of what the problems are.
A NIST ATP Gate 1 proposal is due on
June 10, and I will be making a
submission to them also. This
proposal 6 page executive summary is at:
http://www.ontologystream.com/admin/KnowledgeNet.htm
and a PowerPoint (saved as HTML) is
at:
http://www.ontologystream.com/admin/KTEcosystem_files/frame.htm
I invite collaboration.
The NIST proposal on a "Knowledge
Net Software Framework" and other
infrastructure for knowledge science,
could be a real winner all the way
around. There is room in the
tent.
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: Rob Nixon <rnixon@qdyn.com>
To: paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 15:26:31 -0500
All of the sense associations are
"intertwined" in some type of complex
manifold, each sensory input (or group
of sensory inputs) can act as a
"decoding" key for activation
of a dynamic memory recall. This "decoding
process" of associations can be
viewed as an unfolding of related events that
generates a type of trajectory (that
branches) through "information" space with
something akin to a type of
"momentum". That is why it is often very hard to
change our minds about things.
Pribram's perspective on this is
reflected in his description of "The
Holoscape".
I like Poincare's insight that;
"Objects are not fleeting and
fugitive appearances, because they are not only
groups of sensations, but groups
cemented by a constant bond. It is this bond
alone, which is the object in itself,
and this bond is a relation."
However, I think that his
"constant bond" is a little more dynamic then he might
at first believe.
The "senses" and our
"perceptions" that arise out of them, functioning in a
type
of feedback loop which modulate our
experience of "a" world or world(s), and as
such must be viewed as being unified in
a real sense with that of the "world"
model that we've created over our life
time of thought and experience. It is
this "reinforcement" of
previously experienced relationships that can be viewed
as trajectory (with something akin to
momentum) through what we call an
"information/experience
space".
Again, just trying to make sure that we
aren't boxing ourselves into a corner as
we develop our schema. Many
people often try to break systems down into
isolated pieces, but we run into the
danger of missing the emergent properties
that arise out of the interactions that
form the "whole".
Rob
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>,'Norm Badler'
<badler@central.cis.upenn.edu>, Rex
Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 14:06:42 -0500
Just for the draft to note that we have
the element type in there.
How deep we go in creating a content
model is unknown at this time.
I set abstract to false assuming this
is an element type that
is instantiable. That is just
draft though.
len
*****************************************************************
<xsd:complexType
name="kinesthetic" abstract ="false" >
<xsd:annotation >
<xsd:documentation xml:lang
="en">
<xhtml:h2>Kinesthetic</xhtml:h2>
<xhtml:p>an understanding of the
internal state of the body --
where one's body parts are relative to
each other and gravity (or other forces),
e.g., joint angles, proximities,
orientation. Touch includes external perceptions
such as contact, pressure, and
temperature; kinesthetics can also include internal attributes such
as
aches, pain, discomfort, pressure,
soreness, etc. The "perception" (feeling) of where the body
parts
are, is the result of the signals
received from Muscle Spindles and Golgi tendon organs run through
an "internal model" of the
bodies' structure that has been built up over time. This model
changes
over time as bodies change, so it
is a dynamic process.
</xhtml:p >
</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
<xsd:attributeGroup ref
="humlIdentifierAtts" />
</xsd:complexType>
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
To: Rob Nixon <rnixon@qdyn.com>, paul
<beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 17:06:50 -0400
Well said Rob.
There is a paradigm here, and you have
it.
Ditto Len,
Your box scenario is fine by me, it's
the overall collection of boxes and how they
"overlap" with each other in
a somewhat fuzzy way that I'm talking about. Trying to
find the appropriate box
"interfaces" or "relationship mappings" that
will make
HumanMarkup useful.
But this will be an evolutionary
process. Thanks for the comments.
Rob
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rob Nixon' <rnixon@qdyn.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 16:14:09 -0500
As soon as we have completed the schema
draft review and
have something we are roughly
consenting to, or even
before, someone should be looking at
topic maps built
over this. Relationships are
indeed key for simulation
modeling as well as other
applications.
We have the same problems in public
safety and data
mining. Identifying the data is
hard, but building
a set of data dictionary topics backed
by precise
queries is a heckuva lot harder and
very much determined
by the point of view of the analyst and
the question itself.
len
"... neck deep in the Big Muddy
and the ol' fool says to push on"
Pete Segar
Subject: [humanmarkup] Notes on Process, Stratified
Complexity,Knowledge Management, Topic Maps
and Ontology
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:51:52 -0700
Title: Notes on Process, Stratified
Complexity, Knowledge Man
Hi Everyone,
I wanted to post a few notes about
Knowledge Management, Topic Maps and Ontology because in the course of
exploring the element, channel, we ran right into the divide between
content and processing in computing.
Arguably the separation of content from
processing instructions, which is central to the way XML is
envisioned to work into the future is necessary. This allegedly
allows for such things as the Human Markup Language specs we are
working on because <facetious> we don't have to worry our
pretty little content heads over the nuts and bolts of the
mechanics underlying the use of our pretty little
vocabularies.</facetious> In other words, we are not
supposed to need to look under the hood and see how it works, as
opposed to how it is supposed to work.
Fortunately, we have Len, who spends a
lot of time doing just that on the xml-dev list, which I suggest you
follow even though it is not by any means necessary. The point I am
making is that we really DO have to look under the hood from time to
time and make sure that what we think we are doing is what in fact is
occurring. That's a little less important now that it will be a few
years from now once Web Services, Topic Maps, UBL and HumanMarkup,
etc, have some mileage under their metaphorical belts.
To me the concepts of Stratified
Complexity, Situatedness, and the rest of children that have grown out
of Complex Adaptive Systems are pretty self-evident and also pretty
thoroughly applicable to our work, as far as they go. I'm not really
interested in the debates within these schools of thought, I just
happily take what seems appropriate to me, and leave the rest--which
is all of our prerogatives.
While Kurt, David, Rob, Manos, Paul and
Sylvia (whom I name because I have some slight familiarity with their
views) might all have differences of opinions with me and each other
in regard to details, I suspect we all agree that the
structural, organizational tenets or principles that the masses of
data within most given Knowledge Management Topics or Topic Areas that
can be mapped with Topic Maps (or will be able to be so mapped at some
point soon now) yield are the key tools for making those fields
useful. In my opinion it is in the ability of RDF to usefully extract
the datasets from these fields that we will want and need to use in
HumanMarkup. That is what I see as the the mechanics under the hood,
so to speak that will make our work useful out there in the world at
large.
For myself, because I am not a
scientist, but an artist with some rather odd predilections for
science and technology, I prefer to stay in the realm of the general,
so you don't see me getting into the details of this very often. So I
wanted to say that I think we would benefit from adopting, and
adapting, as David has done, the DAML-OIL set of Ontologies for our
use, to be added to and amended as our secondary schemata require.
For an evaluation of DAML-OIL:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/reqdo.html
For a presentation about DAML-OIL:
www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Slides/daml-pi-feb-01.pdf
You're all adept at searching on your
own, so I won't re-refer to the horrocks paper we studied earlier on
when I went and did that 300+ hours of work on our own
<facetious>little /facetious> HM.frameworks:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/humanmarkup/documents/HM.frameworks.txt
A Last Note: I suggested to Philip
Rossomando that RDF is more amenable to formulating an explicit
grammar from the implicit grammar which our Primary Base Schema will
inevitably contain. And I suggested to him that he contact Manos about
working with Manos on that area with special attention to following
the Topic Maps
work that is also on-going... I suggest
the same to all who want to make a contribution in that area. This is
allied to but neither dependent on, nor envisioned as part of, a
possible High-Level Ontological Framework Subcommittee, or however it
gets named if there is sufficient interest to form it. That, I
would suggest,
should concern itself with HOW to use
both the XML and RDF Base Schemata for the applications, the
identification of which, I would also suggest, should be a first
priority of such a subcommittee.
Ciao,
Rex
P.S. I also tend to ignore dramatic
gestures by volatile personalities. In the long term, the work is what
counts, not who does it or how it gets done or who claims credit for
it.
--
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC