humanmarkup message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-community/SEMIOTIC COMMUNITY
- 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: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 06:31:19 -0700
Title: PBS-Doc-community/SEMIOTIC
COMMUNITY
Hi Everyone,
It made no sense to try to tease apart the slightly different
threads, and since I'm not documenting the semiotic processor work per
se in this effort, there would be little purpose served if I did. This
is another long one. Despite the depth of this discussion, there was
little need to modify this element in the schema except to say that it
is definitionally a humanGroup that exhibits organization typified by
a set of beliefs held in common or actions performed
together....
However, this compendium of messages is important for the
semiotic discussions too.
Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup@lists.oasisi-open.org
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:03:20 -0700
Hi Everyone,
As I said, I am getting back to the
Primary Base Schema discussions
again. Let me preface this by saying
that I do not think that we have
exhausted the previous elements we have
discussed, and, in fact, we
have not as yet settled on final
entries for these elements, but I
want to continue on because we have
enough discussion under each for
me to retrieve and summarize later,
when I do call for finalizing
definitions.
I especially want to make sure that you
don't think that I believe we
have finished with chronemic in
particular because it was the element
which launched us into the semiotic
experiment, which I also want you
join the discussions for exploring the
signs concept as Len and
Sylvia have introduced it thus far.
Now, having said all that, let's
consider our next element:
community
This is a ComplexType without the
attribute of abstract, which means
that it can be used in and of itself
rather than requiring a
derivation.
This element is especially important
because, while artifact strongly
implies a culture for the creation of
something which can be a trace
of human activity; name (which I
include because it has a candidate
specification to which we will needs
adhere) and address pertain to
localizing an individual; bodyLocation
identifies sites on the Human
Body; channel identifies the sensory
inputs that can be assigned to
the Human as we evolve the concept; and
chronemic introduces temporal
context; community gives us an element
upon which we can begin to
develop context because all humans,
even the autisitc, exist in
relation to the overall human
community.
One could argue with that of course,
citing the well-known tree
falling the woods, and also citing
evidence of humans verifiably
raised without human contact--yet we
can only conceive of these
arguments and have experience of the
wild children through reports
from our human community because we
have some kind of a priori
knowledge or experience of human
community and context. And, that,
dear friends is good enough for me and
all I will have to say about
it for now.
What I want to do is consider what Len
has in the straw man schema.
He description begins with: Abstract
Human Organization, and I am
going to take exception to that because
I think it is too abstract. I
think that the element community needs
to start lower down the levels
of abstraction from that. I think it
begins with group, and starts
with two or more human individuals.
I understand the overall purpose of
postulating the abstraction of
organization, shared activities, etc,
and I agree that it is
operationally more useful at that level
for most purposes. However, I
think that if we start with the concept
of group, we can build a more
fundamentally grounded description, and
so I would argue that this
needs to be an abstract type and
needs to be derived for
particularization. The basic unit is
the group and differentiates
from there so that the next level of
abstraction whatever it is must
begin distinguishing identifying
characteristics of the community in
question, from familial to kin
relationships to age groups, to status
groups, etc, etc.
I am, of course, willing to be
persuaded differently. That is, after
all, what discussion is for.
I agree that one typifiction of
communities is shared activities,
communications, rating artifacts,
sharing worship, business, sports,
etc. However I think those distinctions
are at a higher social and
cultural level than I want to begin
with for community.
Let me say a couple of things here,
which relate to the semiotic
discussions, too. For the purposes of
establishing context as it
forms however large a part of an
individual's perception or
cognition, and sense of self that it
does, we need to start at as
fundamental a level of abstraction as
we can, and build up as
discretely as possible, the overlapping
set of influences of
communities in helping form perception,
especially in terms of
cultural communities.
So, if this doesn't get some discussion
going, I may just resort
to... well, maybe not. However, I do
hope to see a bit more
participation. I wish I could just
outright declare vacation season
over, but I will do my best to
stimulate you to participate.
Ciao,
Rex
P.S. Needless to say, please reply to
this with your thoughts on
community, so we can keep the thread
together.
--
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks'
<rexb@starbourne.com>,humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup@lists.oasisi-open.org
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:51:28 -0500
I agree. The current model is not
abstract enough.
Where the issue is is the properties by
which we
can say they are a group, and
I believe "community" implies
consent to share, be
it property, definitions, workspace,
etc. That would
be problematic for a family unit
because a familial
relationship would have both consent
(marriage, divorce, etc.)
and lack of it (children don't choose
parents).
So are you proposing an abstract class
: group?
Is that the term that best describes
it?
A culture is not a group. A group
can have properties the
aggregation of which might be a
culture.
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex
Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,humanmarkup@lists.oasisi-open.org
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:36:45 -0700
Actually, I'm thinking in sets, both
overlapping and enveloping, that
is subsets, supersets, and intersecting
sets. I don't have a
structure yet. I'm hoping that as we
explore this element, some
structure or structures will emerge. I
also think that what is
occurring to me is the beginning of an
approach to the concept of
perception. It has always been the big
missing piece for me. If you
look back at the class structure I did,
for example. I included as
much of the established concepts, such
as personality type models, as
I thought seemed safe, but I did not
include cognition or perception
models. I may be getting closer to a
comfort zone for that, but I'm
not there yet.
I agree that the familial relationship
is less consenting while
children remain in their minority,
though it would apply after that,
and even before, psychologically if not
legally. I'm not sure about
consent as an attribute at the base
level. I'd like to hear from the
others. What I am thinking is:
group - any collection of one or more
humans with or without consent, and
group is the atomic level of
community. How it orders itself in
ascending levels of abstraction is
not clear to me yet, but this seems
necessary to me as the basis for
building up a picture of where
group/community belief structures
define however much of any given
individual member's perceptions or
predisposition toward taking the
group/community belief structure as
their own perceptions.
Thoughts?
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:55:52 -0500
1. I didn't mean to use consent
as an attribute candidate.
I was just offering that as one
exception to community by
consensus. In other words, yes,
as you say, not abstract
enough. Group simply means that a
set of humans has been
grouped. It leaves the reason
vague, and acts almost
like the Group in VRML (grouped for
whatever reason; the
label is an identifier, not a
classifier).
2. Perception. That is
vague because it is overloaded,
for one. I prefer not to
tackle it now. At the moment,
I am interested in considering how a
human in a group
or not in a group can be said to have
competence over
multiple sign systems. In
other words, belonging
to a culture may say of a stereotype,
yes this stereotype
can handle this sign system, but it
can't be said
of an individual human unless they
observably demonstrate
competence. That is the HR
problem in a nutshell. Once
we have a sign system, then testing is
the way to deal
with perceptions.
We will only ever be able to deal with
models of humans,
and models of systems modeled humans
work with.
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex
Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:00:10 -0700
Yep. I agree. How are we doing on sign
systems? I saw a few posts on
xml-dev that included semiotes, but I
have been too busy cranking out
the facial animation system to pay
enough attention. Do we have an
idea what begins to constitute a sign
system per se?
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:02:46 -0500
The sign system per se is the sign
element type. I haven't
spent time defining its subelement
types. I am like
you, spending time on work items (in
this case, a
Foxpro application for the day
gig).
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex
Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:22:47 -0700
Understood. Thanks. I'm on a telecon to
Web Services for Interactive
Applications-Web Services for Remote
Portal Joint Interface
subcommittee in the middle of finishing
up the first version of the
spec. However, progress is being
made.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNITY
From: cognite@zianet.com
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:11:34 -0600
Some analysis of the term 'community'
for the HUML thread.
SC c. 1 August, 2002 by S.
Candelaria
de Ram, its author.
I. B A S I C S
DECOMPOSITION
RECONSTITUTION, with Features/Specs
II. N O T E S
Presuppositionals needed:
En fin: COMMUNITY, SEMIOTIC COMMUNITY
III. O T H E R
Representational adequacy
There's some work in here on the
definition/description
of SEMIOTE and its relation to
SELF/SELVES. Looks like
COMMUNITY and SEMIOTIC COMMUNITY can be
handled. The
kind of things that can be members of
communities gotta be
SHARERS. This stuff coheres with
the SEMIOTE stuff.
A concise formulation of COMMUNITY as
Process may aid
in programming to underlie HUML markup
(in the way HTML
<UL><LI>*</UL> and
<A
HREF=""LETTERSEQUENCEi">LETTERSEQUENCEj</A>
entail computer program conversion
functions in browsers to
lay out an Un-numbered List or
Hyperlink on the user's screen).
Like the earlier thing I made up on
SEMIOTE, this turned out to be
kind of hard-hitting or
"dense", as Rex says, like math is, or logic.
So for the sake of thinking about all
the points, this time I've got
them numbered like equations below.
I wish they didn't glop up
the looks, but let's make a pact
to just imagine them in tiny
italics, or something ;)
--------------------------------------
I. B A S I C S
[0]
commmunity
A. DECOMPOSITION:
[1] co +
mun
[2] co <-
[Romance/Latinate 'with'] + mn
<- [Indo-European root, seen
also in 'moon' esp. as in 'moon
around'; still a word in Hindustani]
[3] co:
share/shared + mn: one's own world-sensitivity/feelings
B. RECONSTITUTION:
[4] shared world
[5] selves with commonality of experience,
whether past, present or future,
and openness to
SHARING.
[6] community:
selves with commonality of experience, whether past, present
or future
and openness to
SHARING.
Features/Specs:
[7] Members of
a community must have selves with world-sensitivity/feelings.
(This does not require that members be
all of a single species or agent
type. Thus
a group's pets may be part of the
community. Conversely, any community must
needs
be diversified.)
[8]
Pre-requisite for a community's being seems to be the existence
of
selves that share.
("Proquisite" might be a better word
-- a possibilitator.)
[9]
Communication is a way of sharing.
[10] A community may
develop characteristic processes of communication,
describable
in general as ways of sharing
world-sensitivity data (and/or feelings).
[11] Community is
causally prior to semiosis (and to signs as symbols and
systems of
signs that serve as symbols).
--------------------------------------
II. N O T E S:
A. Presuppositionals
needed:
[12] SELVES:
With this definition we might need a sufficient
definition/description of
"self"
to have a
fully coherent system of terms. Have we got one?
Also a process to
differentiate SELFi, SELFj (and ascertain plurality).
Nice to see this
fitting into the SEMIOTE stuff everybody liked, like this:
[12.1]
SELFi [in context]
* -- energy transmission [context] * --> SELFj [in
context] *
==may
become==>
SEMIOTEi [in
context] * --signal [context] * --> SEMIOTEj [in context] *
[12.2] which is in
general: pre-semiotic ==may become==> semiotic.
A canonical special
case is idempotency. The idempotent cases are
[12.3] SELFj = SELFi and
SEMIOTEj = SEMIOTEi .
Or, in the plural
(after all, we are talking COMMUNITY),
[12.4] SELVESj =~= SELVESi
and SEMIOTEj* =~= SEMIOTEi*.
(All carrying
contexts as before. I am using '=~=' here to mean
something like 'is
approximately equal to'; it's a bit complex
due to the time
that communicating takes.)
[12.5] Reflexivity and
talking to yourself/yourselves are critical processes
for capturing a
signal/symbol system. Continues to fall out nicely.
IT MAY BE THAT
THIS, PROCESSUALLY, CONSTITUTES COMMUNITY FORMATION.
[12.6]
(SELFi [in context]
*
-- energy
transmission [context] * -->
SELFj [in context]
* ) * <==> COMMUNITY
Note that last *,
which indicates repetition; repetition leads
to a CONTINUING
COMMUNITY, with CONTINUING COMMUNICATION.
[12.7]
It's that last star
that constitutes what the "-ity" suffix on
"co + mn +
ity" indicates. The -ity says that we've got an
"abstract"
object; actually what we have is a composite-phenomenon.
A
composite-phenomenon, with embedded, intrinsic context.
One more wrinkle
regarding the nature of the SELFi whose
COMMUNITY
forms.
Thinking of putting
AGENTi,j * in place of SELFi, j * to form communities
seems not quite
right; something is lacking, something to do with
personality or
spontaneity of action or maybe of being a SHARER.... So:
[12.8] (1) Just having
Agents does not necessarily give us a community.
[12.9] (2) We see that the
kind of SELVES we need here must have the
nature for
SHARING. They
have to recognize and appreciate that
COMMONALITY,
processing their world with their sensitivity to it.
Recognizing and
appreciating are processes, in which HUML can aid.
[12.10] (Hmmmm....) This is
to posit that the SELVES have to be
SHARER-SELVES!
Earlier discussion
in this thread of community-membership-by-assent
and children in a
family bears on this point; assent might be seen as
enhancement of
current-SHARING tendency, and dissent as its inhibition.
This will still
work for a baby. It interacts with dependence needs.
But that's psych,
and a simple positing of SHARER-SELVES may cover
just enough for
what we need. (Right?) But the fact of actual
participation,
willy-nilly, seems to constitute membership.
[12.11]
SHARING: Not neatly separable from
[potential community-member-]SELVES, as
noted.
[Processual
ascertainment might be practical for this: What do you
think?] COMMONALITY is another essential,
though.
[12.12]
COMMUNICATION: a way/ways of SHARING by
SELVES [This is
a partial
definition/description only]
[12.13]
Given such definitional dependency,
COMMUNITY, based on it, would
not be a primitive.
------
B. En fin:
[13]
COMMUNITY: SHARING-SELVES with commonality of
experience, whether past,
present or future, and contextual
conditions/enablement for SHARING.
[14]
(SELFi [in context]
*
-- energy
transmission [context] * -->
SELFj [in context]
* ) * <==> COMMUNITY
[15]
SEMIOTIC COMMUNITY:
[16]
SELFi [in context]
* -- energy transmission [context] * --> SELFj [in
context] *
==may
become==>
SEMIOTEi [in
context] * --signal [context] * --> SEMIOTEj [in context] *
when
[17a]
SELVESi* ==become
symbolizers [to themselves and each other] ==> SEMIOTEi*
That is, stated more precisely, with the essential contexts
explicit:
[17b]
SELVESi [context]
*
==become
symbolizers [to themselves and each other] [context] * ==>
SEMIOTEi [context]
*
-----
A typical contextual condition for
sharing used to be common geolocale and
simultaneous existence. No more.
Hence need for HUML, our HUman Markup
Language work.
--------------------------------------
III. O T H E R
C. Comments on
Representation:
Seems to me sets are helpful concepts, as noted
earlier in the thread, but
sets are not sufficient for
representing the semiotic:
[20] A "self"
is idiosyncratic, unlike an element of a set.
[21] A "self"
is grounded thru sensitivity, unlike an element of a set.
[22] A community is
necessarily diversified, more than a set is.
[23] A set is defined
by declaration; it is a theory construct. A community
is not.
[24] A community
comes into being by virtue of its natural existence in the
real
world. [Sharability is also
entailed.] (Artificial agents are somebody's
artifices -- and that somebody (or
somebodies) is a realworld "self".
[25] Animal agents
even more clearly come into being thru spontaneous
actions of
realworld things.)
Therefore, whereas some of the
properties of sets (distinct elements) and set
operations (intersection, idempotency
for example) are conceptual analogues to
sharing by individual agents, they are
not adequate to represent community, or
self, or communication, which are real
(grounded).
Similar problems are found with
standard logics. Ultimately, these
observations
lead into non-classical, grounded logic
for representing such things, such as
given in Candelaria de Ram (1992,
PRAGMASEMANTICS: TOWARD A
COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTABLE
MODEL FOR LINGUISTIC COGNITION).
Representing dynamics is an essential here.
However, for HUML we can finesse all
that probably, in preference to our
computer-document markup/handling
goals. There use of math notation is mighty
mighty handy for what we're doing, and
translates well for computer programming
to implement it.
-------
SC
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNITY
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: cognite@zianet.com, humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:34:43 -0700
Thanks, Sylvia,
This is, as you say, dense and that is
good. The work we are doing
needs to be dense in the sense of
bedrock. In any event, this will
take a bit of time to digest. And my
morning work time is done and
now it is on to chores and tasks of a
more mundane nature. I will get
back to this either this afternoon or
tomorrow morning.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNI TY
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
cognite@zianet.com,humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:42:41 -0500
Before I dig too deeply, in the sign
experiment, I was
wondering about the community and
containers. Could it
be that we are trying to make rules for
declaring a
community (eg, creating markup
with infinitely
extensible code sets), or that we
actually simply need a
rule for identifying a group, then
classifying a community?
A thought experiment: if we were
to say that a community
as Sylvia says, is identified by the
act of sharing, then
classified by the types of things
shared, could we condense
the sign experiment down to a set of
signs (recursively
constructed) and a set of topic maps
over those signs
and that the community can be
identified by the act
of sharing signs, and classified by the
shared topic maps?
I'm not a topic map guru. But
given the element type
<!ELEMENT sign (sign*, signifier,
signified+, referent* ) >
<!ATTRIBUTE sign
id ID #REQUIRED
type (symbol | icon |
index) #REQUIRED >
how would we use topic maps to classify
and navigate
instances of that element type?
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNITY
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: cognite@zianet.com, humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 08:51:06 -0700
Hi Everyone,
I am going to go through this item by
item and then I hope I will
have formed an opinion about Len's
subsequent suggestions/questions.
It may take me the whole weekend. The
one consideration that I think
we have take into account a priori with
this term, is the historical
record of sociological thought
concerning community. It was part of
the underlying substrate that informed
my initial comments concerning
the necessity of paring down the
concept to humanGroup first so that
we could start from a viewpoiint that
sees the atomic level as far as
we can, i.e. the definition of two or
more humans gathered together.
Sociological thought has made a
distinction between macro and micro,
impersonal and personal,large or social
and small or local, the
gesellschaft and gemeinschaft. The term
humanGroup is meant to
prefigure those distinctions since we
are committed to harmonizing
with the largely accepted academic
schools of thought with regard to
our work. That said, nothing we have
explored here breaks with that,
but builds upon it implicitly. The
density in Sylvia's work is making
this atomistic analytical framework
very concrete and that is pretty
much what we are about.
At 11:11 AM -0600 8/2/02,
cognite@zianet.com wrote:
>Some analysis of the term
'community' for the HUML thread.
>SC c. 1 August, 2002 by S.
Candelaria
>de Ram, its author.
>
>I. B A S I C S
>
DECOMPOSITION
>
RECONSTITUTION, with Features/Specs
>II. N O T E S
>
Presuppositionals needed:
>
En fin: COMMUNITY, SEMIOTIC COMMUNITY
>III. O T H E R
>
Representational adequacy
>
>There's some work in here on the
definition/description
>of SEMIOTE and its relation to
SELF/SELVES. Looks like
>COMMUNITY and SEMIOTIC COMMUNITY
can be handled. The
>kind of things that can be members
of communities gotta be
>SHARERS. This stuff coheres
with the SEMIOTE stuff.
>A concise formulation of COMMUNITY
as Process may aid
>in programming to underlie HUML
markup (in the way HTML
><UL><LI>*</UL>
and <A
HREF=""LETTERSEQUENCEi">LETTERSEQUENCEj</A>
>entail computer program conversion
functions in browsers to
>lay out an Un-numbered List or
Hyperlink on the user's screen).
>
>Like the earlier thing I made up on
SEMIOTE, this turned out to be
>kind of hard-hitting or
"dense", as Rex says, like math is, or logic.
>So for the sake of thinking about
all the points, this time I've got
>them numbered like equations
below. I wish they didn't glop up
> the looks, but let's make a
pact to just imagine them in tiny
>italics, or something ;)
>
>--------------------------------------
>I. B A S I C S
>
>[0]
commmunity
>
>A. DECOMPOSITION:
>
>[1] co + mun
>
>[2] co <-
[Romance/Latinate 'with'] + mn
<- [Indo-European root, seen
>also in 'moon' esp. as in 'moon
around'; still a word in Hindustani]
>
>[3] co:
share/shared + mn: one's own world-sensitivity/feelings
>
>B. RECONSTITUTION:
>
>[4] shared world
>[5] selves with commonality of experience,
whether
>past, present or future,
>
and openness to SHARING.
>
>[6] community:
selves with commonality of experience, whether past, present
>or future
>
and openness to SHARING.
I agree that the concept of sharing is
fundamental, as is the concept
of selves, although I am not sure if we
might not want to examine the
concept further insofar as digital
information system analysis is
concerned.
It may be that the concept of self is
somewhat farther up the ladder
of abstraction than the base entity of
the human, which, so far,
merely has to have the capacity for
asserting itself as such to
qualify.
Consciousness or awareness of selfhood
is pretty difficult to test
for successfully, and equating self
with human (small "h" such that
it can represent a biological or
software entity) does not quite work
for me. I will set that aside for now.
I'm not going to satisfy
myself about that in next few minutes
if I haven't yet in my work on
this so far. (Self is right up there
with Perception as the Big Bad
Bogies that I have not yet satisfied
myself about.)
What I propose to do is the equate self
with small h human for now.
Otherwise we run into the question of
testing for selfness which I
think gets us in trouble. We may want
to exclude software agents from
sharing in community--but that is
another discussion.
>Features/Specs:
>
>[7] Members of a
community must have selves with
>world-sensitivity/feelings.
>(This does not require that members
be all of a single species or agent
>type. Thus
>a group's pets may be part of the
community. Conversely, any community must
>needs
>be diversified.)
>
>[8]
Pre-requisite for a community's being seems to be the existence
of
>selves that share.
>
("Proquisite" might be a better word -- a
possibilitator.)
We'll need to define the conditions
(what I usually call
characteristics) that a community must
satisfy in order for it to
meet the definition enabling its
validation as existent.
These conditions/characteristics will
then probably define what kind
or type of community it is, i.e. what
it shares.
>[9] Communication
is a way of sharing.
>
>[10] A community may
develop characteristic processes of communication,
>describable
>in general as ways of sharing
world-sensitivity data (and/or feelings).
>
>[11] Community is
causally prior to semiosis (and to signs as symbols and
>systems of
>signs that serve as symbols).
Okay, this is good.
>
>--------------------------------------
>II. N O T E S:
>
>A. Presuppositionals
needed:
>
>[12] SELVES: With
this definition we might need a sufficient
>definition/description of
"self"
>
to have a fully coherent system of terms.
>Have we got one?
>
Also a process to differentiate SELFi, SELFj
>(and ascertain plurality).
>
>
Nice to see this fitting into the SEMIOTE
>stuff everybody liked, like
this:
As I mentioned earlier, I think we will
have to accept self as
self-asserted small h human for now,
and that keeps everything in
this section working the way I think
Len is exploring.
>[12.1]
>
SELFi [in context] * -- energy transmission
>[context] * --> SELFj [in
>context] *
>
==may become==>
>
SEMIOTEi [in context] * --signal [context] *
>--> SEMIOTEj [in context] *
>
>[12.2] which is in
general: pre-semiotic ==may
>become==> semiotic.
>
>
A canonical special case is idempotency. The
>idempotent cases are
>[12.3] SELFj = SELFi and
SEMIOTEj = SEMIOTEi .
>
Or, in the plural (after all, we are talking
>COMMUNITY),
>[12.4] SELVESj =~= SELVESi
and SEMIOTEj* =~= SEMIOTEi*.
>
(All carrying contexts as before. I am using
>'=~=' here to mean
>
something like 'is approximately equal to';
>it's a bit complex
>
due to the time that communicating takes.)
Yikes! We better be careful about this.
I think I understand, but
what I understand tells me that we just
casually decided to invent a
whole new computing operation, and I'm
not enough of a computer
scientist to begin understanding the
ramifications of that.
>[12.5] Reflexivity and
talking to
>yourself/yourselves are critical
processes
>
for capturing a signal/symbol system.
>Continues to fall out nicely.
>
>
IT MAY BE THAT THIS, PROCESSUALLY,
>CONSTITUTES COMMUNITY
FORMATION.
Not entirely sure of this. This gets a
"could be" but I have to try
to punch holes in it a while before I
agree.
>
>[12.6]
>
(SELFi [in context] *
>
-- energy transmission [context] * -->
>
SELFj [in context] * ) * <==> COMMUNITY
>
>
Note that last *, which indicates repetition;
>repetition leads
>
to a CONTINUING COMMUNITY, with CONTINUING
>COMMUNICATION.
This does not require 12.5 and is
therefore A-OK by me.
>[12.7]
>
It's that last star that constitutes what the
>"-ity" suffix on
>
"co + mn + ity" indicates. The -ity says
>that we've got an
>
"abstract" object; actually what we have is a
>composite-phenomenon.
>
A composite-phenomenon, with embedded,
>intrinsic context.
This works for gemeinschaft but needs
more qualifiers to achieve gesellschaft.
>
One more wrinkle regarding the nature of the
>SELFi whose
>
COMMUNITY forms.
>
Thinking of putting AGENTi,j * in place of
>SELFi, j * to form communities
>
seems not quite right; something is lacking,
>something to do with
>
personality or spontaneity of action or maybe
>of being a SHARER.... So:
>[12.8] (1) Just having
Agents does not necessarily
>give us a community.
>[12.9] (2) We see that the
kind of SELVES we need
>here must have the
>nature for
>
SHARING. They have to recognize and appreciate that
>
COMMONALITY, processing their world with
>their sensitivity to it.
>
Recognizing and appreciating are processes,
>in which HUML can aid.
Capacity for sharing by an unbiased
test based on appropriate
responses might get us closer to what a
SELF is, or what constitutes
a SELF, but for now I'm gonna stay with
small h human, and leave it
at self-assertion, and say that I think
we can allow communities to
build and conduct their own tests,
because I do agree that once they
qualify, they are objects in their own
right, and may be required to
build and conduct their own tests
if they want to interact with
other, larger communities==the way the
world works, like OASIS for
example.
>[12.10] (Hmmmm....) This is to posit that
>the SELVES have to be
>SHARER-SELVES!
I think that gets closer to SELF, but
I'm not sure we even want to
try to define and test for SELFNESS
yet.
>
>
Earlier discussion in this thread of
>community-membership-by-assent
>
and children in a family bears on this point;
>assent might be seen as
>
enhancement of current-SHARING tendency, and
>dissent as its inhibition.
>
This will still work for a baby. It
>interacts with dependence
needs.
>
But that's psych, and a simple positing of
>SHARER-SELVES may cover
>
just enough for what we need. (Right?) But
>the fact of actual
>
participation, willy-nilly, seems to
>constitute membership.
>
>[12.11]
>SHARING: Not neatly separable from
[potential community-member-]SELVES, as
>noted.
>
[Processual ascertainment might be practical
>for this: What do you
>
think?] COMMONALITY
>is another essential, though.
I think processual ascertainment ==
test ;) I think I preagreed in 12.9
>[12.12]
>COMMUNICATION: a way/ways of
SHARING by SELVES
[This is a partial
>
definition/description only]
>
>[12.13]
>Given such definitional dependency,
COMMUNITY, based on it, would
>
not be a primitive.
I ABSOLUTELY agree, community should
not be a primitive, humanGroup should be.
>------
>B. En fin:
>
>[13]
>
COMMUNITY: SHARING-SELVES with commonality of experience, whether
past,
>
present or future, and contextual conditions/enablement for
SHARING.
OUCH, (not your statement, my thought)!
Another bugaboo just struck
me between the eyes. We are going to
have do distinguish somehow
between and among:
Acceptance==reception of signal;
Agreement==acknowledgement of signal,
AND no transmission of
contradictory signal; Assertion of
Commonality==?
That's not right, and I know it, but I
just don't have the time at
the moment to think it through more.
I'm getting very antsy with the
number of times the word test is
occuring to me. Somehow we need to
allow for it and yet not overburden the
use of HumanML due to
performance overhead.
>[14]
>
(SELFi [in context] *
>
-- energy transmission [context] * -->
>
SELFj [in context] * ) * <==> COMMUNITY
>
>[15]
>
SEMIOTIC COMMUNITY:
>
>[16]
>
SELFi [in context] * -- energy transmission
>[context] * --> SELFj [in
>context] *
>
==may become==>
>
SEMIOTEi [in context] * --signal [context] *
>--> SEMIOTEj [in context] *
>
> when
>
>[17a]
>
SELVESi* ==become symbolizers [to themselves
>and each other] ==>
SEMIOTEi*
> That is, stated more precisely, with
the essential
>contexts explicit:
>
>[17b]
>
SELVESi [context] *
>
==become symbolizers [to themselves and each
>other] [context] * ==>
>
SEMIOTEi [context] *
>
>-----
>
>A typical contextual condition for
sharing used to be common geolocale and
>simultaneous existence. No
more. Hence need for HUML, our HUman Markup
>Language work.
Yep. Hit the nail on the head
there.
>--------------------------------------
>III. O T H E R
>
>C. Comments on
Representation:
>
>
Seems to me sets are helpful concepts, as noted earlier in
>the thread, but
>sets are not sufficient for
representing the semiotic:
>
>[20] A "self"
is idiosyncratic, unlike an element of a set.
>[21] A "self"
is grounded thru sensitivity, unlike an element of a set.
I think set applies to overlapping
memberships in communities, less
in regard to the individual whose
memberships are looked at through
that particular filter.
>[22] A community is
necessarily diversified, more than a set is.
Agreed, set theory should not be used
where impractical. It's just a
viewpoint/filter for making sense out
of the background field.
>[23] A set is defined
by declaration; it is a theory construct. A community
>is not.
Actually, I'm thinking more of finding
a way to allow these kinds of
sets, communities, to emerge and, in
effect, declare themselves
rather than us declaring them.
>[24] A community comes
into being by virtue of its natural existence in the
>real
>world. [Sharability is also
entailed.] (Artificial agents are somebody's
>artifices -- and that somebody (or
somebodies) is a realworld "self".
This is true but gets sticky. When you
give discretion to an
artifice, is it still and artifice
only? I don't want to debate it, I
just mention it because someone
inevitably will, and we might as well
line up our arguments ahead of
time.
>[25] Animal agents even
more clearly come into being thru spontaneous
>actions of
>realworld things.)
>
>Therefore, whereas some of the
properties of sets (distinct elements) and set
>operations (intersection,
idempotency for example) are conceptual analogues to
>sharing by individual agents, they
are not adequate to represent community, or
>self, or communication, which are
real (grounded).
>
>Similar problems are found with
standard logics. Ultimately, these
>observations
>lead into non-classical, grounded
logic for representing such things, such as
>given in Candelaria de Ram (1992,
PRAGMASEMANTICS: TOWARD A
>COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTABLE
>MODEL FOR LINGUISTIC COGNITION).
Representing dynamics is an essential here.
>
>However, for HUML we can finesse
all that probably, in preference to our
>computer-document markup/handling
goals. There use of math notation is mighty
>mighty handy for what we're doing,
and translates well for computer
>programming
>to implement it.
I'm glad for that. I really am having
to think about a lot of the
implications of the Wolfram work in
that darn book.
It is useful to know that demanding
simplicity won't really prevent
or even reduce complexity in the
results of a process, nor that
complexity in analytical tools will
better analyze complex processes.
However, there as yet appears to be no
great ground rules for
recognizing which initial conditions
for a process will result in
repeating, simple or complex
patterns. Darn.
>-------
>
>SC
>
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNI TY
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: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 07:06:01 -0700
Again, I'm going to take it point by
point. What I haven't mentioned
before is that if I don't comment on
something you can generally take
it that I agree. However, feel free to
call me on it, because I might
simply have missed something or
inadvertently skipped over something.
At 1:42 PM -0500 8/2/02, Bullard,
Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Before I dig too deeply, in the
sign experiment, I was
>wondering about the community
and containers. Could it
>be that we are trying to make rules
for declaring a
>community (eg, creating markup with
infinitely
>extensible code sets), or that we
actually simply need a
>rule for identifying a group, then
classifying a community?
Now that I am thinking about it, this
is pretty much where I have
been heading. I want to draw
distinctions between groups and
communities. It seems to me that we are
exploring how and where those
distinctions can be made, or what rules
seem to emerge from our
collective experience and thought for
making those distinctions.
Basically I don't think an emotional
mob, an archetypal lynch mob,
for instance, qualifies as
community in the way I think of a
community, and such group dynamics are
distinctly different from a
community process, such as a local
PTA.
>A thought experiment: if we
were to say that a community
>as Sylvia says, is identified by
the act of sharing, then
>classified by the types of things
shared, could we condense
>the sign experiment down to a set
of signs (recursively
>constructed) and a set of topic
maps over those signs
>and that the community can be
identified by the act
>of sharing signs, and classified by
the shared topic maps?
Works for me.
>I'm not a topic map guru. But
given the element type
>
><!ELEMENT sign (sign*,
signifier, signified+, referent* ) >
><!ATTRIBUTE sign
> id ID #REQUIRED
> type (symbol | icon |
index) #REQUIRED >
>
>how would we use topic maps to
classify and navigate
>instances of that element type?
This is a very important consideration.
This is where we have
recourse to standard published subject
indexes (which don't exist
yet) which use one or another upper
level ontology as the base search
structure. What I suspect is going to
happen, of necessity, will that
major, organized disciplines will
provide indexes to their topic
areas, stating which ontologies they
use and we will have search
engines of search engines at the front
end of our document trees for
topic maps so that we can track our
criteria sets. (OH GD, here come
the patterns again! This is like deja
vu all over again. Once you
start recognizing patterns, your mind
goes straight to one of
Wolfram's patterns whenever you see
one. I'll be glad to get done
with that damn thing!)
<digression>For those of you who
thought the concern over the Topic
Maps community's apparent preference
for the Cyc Ontology (made by
someone associated with that system and
for whom, I would suppose, no
potential extra fee is a consideration)
with little or no
consideration given to the DAML+OIL,
except for similarly-minded
folks to say they find faults here and
there with it in terms of
classifications of associations such as
dog being or not being an
associated member of the either the pet
or domesticated animals
(superset--my term) published subject
topic.</digression>
Sorry for the digression, and I hate to
make it sound trivial because
it decidedly isn't, especially when we
get down to classifications of
communities by topic maps over shared
sign systems.
Also, just to make it clear to those
among our lurkers who aren't
getting IT straightaway, this
represents a major reduction in
computing performance overhead,
and an increase in speed for finding
associations to which an individual's
memberships in communities
apply. That's also why we need to make
sure we get this as correct as
we can, because we will probably be
living with the results much like
we do with credit reports, motor
vehicle code violations histories,
etc.
To repeat, memberships in communities
would occur by assertion, I
assume, or by behavioral tracking.
Communities would be defined by
shared sign systems. Topic Maps group
associations by categories,
categories are organized by
ontologies, found by search engines of
search engines, mostly all done by
metadata in the headers of
documents, delivering the sign systems
to which an individual belongs.
Is that what you're looking for
Len?
Ciao,
Rex
>len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNI TY
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
cognite@zianet.com,humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 14:44:43 -0500
As much as I can follow it, sure.
But individuals
don't belong to sign systems.
They use them and by
use, appear to belong to a community of
use. That
is precisely how public safety systems
use gang grafitti,
and criminal argot. Use of it is
simply evidence that
further inquiry is warranted. On
the other hand, the
use of it in correct contexts is one
way members
of such communities identify each other
and communicate
in code or shorthand.
It doesn't matter so much as it does
that one have a
reasonably easy to use system for
collecting and organizing
observations that enable one to select
and dispatch
resources for testing observations and
for mediating
behaviors of the observed.
Umm... actually, a soccer riot is a
predictable behavior
of a named community. The act
does not define the
community but the observed potential
does organize
the circumstances under which the
behavior may occur.
Thus, to plan for allocating and
dispatching resources
to act on the event, or to preempt the
event, the model
works pretty well.
I think we pretty much agree on
this.
BTW: any well organized
relational database is a topic
map of sorts if one includes the
relationships that provide
views to involvements among the table
types. That is
what a data dictionary system
provides. The challenge
is to build one that will scale up to
lots and lots of
users with different points of view
(say, task oriented
views). What a topic map can
provide is an implementation
neutral way to express the information
needed for the
topic.
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNI TY
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: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:19:54 -0700
Getting closer. The notion that we can
use semiotic topic maps
appeals to me as a way to organize sign
systems into data
dictionaries. It also happens to answer
the question of how we are
going to get the relevant data
resources connected up for HumanML
applications.
This is an area where I wish I had a
few grad students or post grads
who could be fascinated into doing some
heavy lifting for us.
Classifying Cultures, even at the level
of simply organizing the
names of such cultures into a table
that would serve as the basis for
one such data dictionary, ought to be
worth a couple three masters
theses or doctoral dissertations.
However, I doubt it is going to get
done yesterday just because I would
like to have it to hand now.
Regardless of the writer's fantasy,
(sigh), there are a couple of
further thoughts on community that I
want to get into our archive
before I trundle onward. I think that,
also in contradistinction to
the straw man schema, community is
probably going to be used in other
elements, which is really just a way to
capture one more change that
I think is needed in this element
before it gets added to Primary
Base Schema, which is where I think it
belongs along with humanGroup.
And, Lastly, community is yet another
non-linear, atemporal,
context-bound and therefore
time-bound even though atemporal,
element. That basically means that a
WASP cultural entity exists
simultaneously in 1776 and 1976, though
the attributes of said
culture for any particular time period
will be slightly different
both in the way that the community
views itself and how it is viewed
from without or by other cultural
communities.
My! What a cooincidence. the next
element in alphbetical order is:
(you guessed it) CULTURE. I can't
really promise, or warn you all
when I will get to it. I have some hope
for today, but it will
probably be Friday or next week/
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNI TY
From: cognite@zianet.com
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, Rex Brooks
<rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:24:24 -0600
At 10:19 AM 07-08-2002 -0700, you
wrote:
>Getting closer. The notion that we
can use semiotic topic maps
>appeals to me as a way to organize
sign systems into data
>dictionaries. It also happens to
answer the question of how we are
>going to get the relevant data
resources connected up for HumanML
>applications.
It may work; there's already structure
to connect to. The current
graph structures may need
extending.... It's not trivial, but hopefully
can be done in steps. Perhaps --
moving from the shallower use of
already-explicit
notations that can be applied, onward
to our own terms/tags/processes and API
for apps, though.
Actually there's so much structure
already that seeing where to go.... 8-o ;)
<snip>
> a WASP cultural entity exists
>simultaneously in 1776 and 1976,
though the attributes of said
>culture for any particular time
period will be slightly different
>both in the way that the community
views itself and how it is viewed
>from without or by other cultural
communities.
very interesting that the processual
definition of
those-who-communicate-constitute-a-[changing]-community
makes communities of whoever continues
the dialogue...so that
literary critics join with the authors
they discuss even posthumously
in a community [of common interest]!
Nice, I reckon.
Makes it quite consonant with topic
continuity, all right.
There is work on Self-Organizing-Maps;
for a quick overview
this is cool:
http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/wlg/1081. It gathers
from Finance, Bio, and NLP (Natural
Language).
>REX> memberships in communities
would occur by assertion, I
>>assume, or by behavioral
tracking. Communities would be defined by
>>shared sign systems. Topic Maps
group associations by categories,
>>categories are organized by
ontologies, found by search engines of
>>search engines, mostly all done
by metadata in the headers of
>>documents, delivering the sign
systems to which an individual belongs.
Headers contain readily retrievable
metadata cues to such things as sets of
conventions pertinent to various
natural languages: 1, pre-established.
The documents themselves bear
information too about sign systems they
embody: 2, intrinsic.
Some of it may reside in tags: 2a,
explicit;
Some may some not: 2b, derivable.
Cumulatively, the sign System -- along
with the referents (signifie's) that
are necessarily part of semiosis -- is
emergent.
How does that come into play?
Here's an example I just ran across of
XML tags that gave very pertinent
info for HUML (REF:
http://www.ontopia.net/~grove/software/xmlarch/ )
Result
<?xml version="1.0"
standalone="yes"?>
<persons>
<author>Geir Ove Grønmo</author>
<mentioned>Eliot Kimber</mentioned>
<mentioned>David Megginson</mentioned>
<mentioned>Lars Marius Garshol</mentioned>
</persons>
from:
<ul>
<li><a
href=""http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/docs/n1920/html/clause-A.3.html";>Architec
tural Form Definition Requirements
[AFDR]</a></li>
<li><a
href=""http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/document/1957.htm";>ISO/IEC
10744 Amendment
1</a></li>
<li><a
href=""http://www.isogen.com/papers/archintro.html";><i
persons="mentioned">Eliot
Kimber</i>'s "A Tutorial to SGML
Architectures"</a></li>
<li><a
href=""http://www.sil.org/sgml/topics.html#archForms";>The"
SGML/XML
Web Page: Architectural Forms and
SGML/XML Architectures</a></li>
<li><a
href=""http://www.megginson.com/XAF/index.html";><i
persons="mentioned">David
Megginson</i>'s XAF package for Java</a></li>
<li><a
href=""http://www.megginson.com/SAX/index.html";>SAX:" The
Simple
API for XML</a></li>
<li><a
href=""http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/download/python/xml/saxlib.html";><i
persons="mentioned">Lars
Marius Garshol</i>'s SAX for Python</a></li>
</ul>
I don't know what the rule is that lets
these inserts be inside of
<i>...</i>, or if you
could use <SPAN>....</SPAN>
where there wasn't a handy enclosure by layout
markup tags. Do you?
In the example file biblio1.out for
this python ADFR (XML Architectures)
parser, a relation
between the author's name (and original
site of www.infotek.no ?) and
Norwegian is also shown, but I don't
see where it came from; loss of the
slash thru Gronmo is noted -- perhaps
that was done assuming Norwegian
character set, but metainfo has this --
doesn't it indicate English as the
document language?
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
"">.
-------------
?test where="before"
?test where="after"
(biblio
-
(firstname
Anationality norwegian
-Geir Ove
)firstname
(lastname
Aht #IMPLIED
Amodified yes
-Gronmo
)lastname
(note
Aht address
-You can reach me at
-grove@infotek.no
)note
-
-
)biblio
-------------
SC
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community: SEMIOTIC
COMMUNI TY
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: cognite@zianet.com, humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,Rex
Brooks
<rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 20:16:54 -0700
I've done a quick review and this is
very much what I had in mind.
The resources are there. It's a matter
of tapping them so that they
get directed where we need them to go
when we turn the spigot on. Of
course it also helps if the resources
are in the form and order
(sequence) we need, too. I'll study
this in more depth soon.
Ciao,
Rex
--
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