humanmarkup message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-haptic
- 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 11:30:36 -0700
Title: PBS-Doc-haptic
Not much changed except some descriptive
text accounting for the notion of our stuff(ics) being united in one
of their roles, as factors in communication. I was not comfortable or
confident enough of our ground to add a set of clear coded examples,
so I left it as was in terms of schema function. It is still an
un-enumerated complexType.
Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-haptic
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:40:31 -0700
Hi Everyone,
Movin'-on.
haptic
The element is a ComplexType and
abstract . It does not reference
other elements and is not used by other
elements and belongs to the
attribute group humlIentifierAtts.
And that is where the easy
categorization ends. I've been thinking
about this element for a while now, and
that is the reason why it ha
taken me a while to get to it, rather
than our other scheduled work,
i.e. our most recent meeting. Rather
than enumerate all the info in
in the description which is fairly
lengthy, I will have to ask that
it be read because I want to suggest
that we give this element quite
a bit of thought. I do not in any way
disagree with what Len has done
in the straw man, and I will gladly
accept that as the most useful
definition of the term, but I think we
need to consider it more
deeply, especially as it relates to
elements to come such as kinesic
and proxemic.
There are at least three areas that
come under haptic.
1. Touching behaviors involve the
intimate, personal and social
parameters which seem very much like
they should either be their own
elements as derivations or should be
high level attributes, i.e.
attributes of the Primary Base Element
haptic itself and that would
be the first time we would do that. I
would prefer not to do that
because I have always tried to avoid
using attributes of elements
wherever possible. They are messy and
introduces a dose of
computational complexity at a level in
the processing of the XML
schema that is a lot cleaner, faster,
and easier without it. In
addition, touching behaviors, as Len
points out vary from culture to
culture with differing rules for which
body parts are used in various
circumstances, as well as having great
differences in the kinds of
actions with which they are associated,
such as hostility or
affection.
2. Sensory channel functions for which
an entire scientific
discipline and literature exists--the
mouse being an example of a
haptic feedback-control mechanism.
3. Emotional Communication, while it
involves or can involve both
touching and sensory channels extends
outward as the interface for a
wide number of actions and reactions of
a non-verbal nature which
either communicate something completely
without combining with any
verbal communications such as a kiss
leading to sexual arousal and
complete sexual acts or pulling the
trigger of a gun which may end
another human being's life, but which
may or may not be an emotional
communication per se.
I suggest we spend some effort teasing
these aspect of haptic apart
and look at them in light of how they
will be included in the
semiotic engine for processing
communications and how they will set a
precedent for the other elements which
fall into the non-verbal
communications areas.
Please noe that I have not addressed
the datatyping values because
they are amply covered by what Len has
already set down. I don't
think we need to noodle that any
further. We just need to come to
grips with the range of aspects we are
considering, which, as I said,
could easily
just be going with what we already have and leaving it
at that. However, before we do that, I
think we need to consider
these other issues.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-haptic
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:02:30 -0500
Haptics among other things force out
the need to identify
how to denote co-occurrence
constraints. For example, when
the culture is Borg, the haptic values
fall into say
some range depending on the other
relationships in effect
at the time and place and objects
present (the context).
This aspect of situatedness that the KR
folks talk about
dominates the design of a description
of a human
communication.
That is why as I have been working the
semiote requirements,
I have found myself focusing more on
individual selector
types that have to be active in order
for a semiote to
choose among signs both to perceive
(what we don't
believe or understand, we don't note),
and to send
(our emotional values weight our
selections even
when logic says otherwise). These
selectors are
activated by among other things, the
**proximity** of
other objects in the environment and
the signs they
can receive and emit, and will receive
and emit.
It begins to look very object-oriented
in implementation,
but a VRMLie usually understands how
this is modeled
in the coordinate space, and an AI guy
knows how to
represent the relationships in db
objects that feed
that real time engine.
Seeing that early, I left a lot of the
primaries
abstract because I think we have to
have some simple
and reasonably uniform/universal
definitions up
there. It is as said, a weak
ontology because
a strong one would quickly lead to
fractures.
Many object designs have weak abstract
classes.
You are right, but haptic is just
touching behavior.
The rest has to be done in combinations
of co-ocurring
ranges of values of the other
elements. The combinations
don't occur in the primary, but in the
secondaries. Yes?
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-haptic
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:37:10 -0700
Yes. I'm just looking to tease out
those relationships and the
situatedness you mention, and which
David Dodds is working on, too.
Haptics per se is just touching
behavior, but we have to make sure we
demarcate where touching and sensing
diverge, while recognizing that
in some circumstances they merge.
Not an easy distinction when sending
and receiving get that close together.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-haptic
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:40:11 -0700
I second the suggestion.
Ciao,
Rex
At 11:08 AM -0500 8/23/02, Bullard,
Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Everyone might want to glance over
this over
>the weekend.
>
>http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/compsemio/
>
>Don't get too lost in Gudwin's
terminology, but
>the models are sound.
Professor's and department
>heads are entangled in the
processes of education
>and funding, publishing papers and
accruing references
>to their work as a means of
creating authority
>perspectives.
>
>We just need schemas and running
code for semiotes.
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks
[mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>
>Good. That's what I'm looking
for.
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-haptic
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:48:06 -0700
I forgot to add that the math for
matching and mapping patterns is
most likely going to come from
Wolfram's work, but I wouldn't want to
bog anyone down right now, except
Sylvia, with the suggestion that
they have the Wolfram book to hand
while going through Gudwin's work.
Rob's already done it and I'm slogging
through it in parallel with
the process of examining the elements
in the Base Schema.
When I think about how these apparently
separate studies that have
each been assiduously worked on over
the last twenty years, actually
work together I am put in mind of the
Grateful Dead song, "What a
long strange trip, it's been."
I still second the suggestion.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-haptic
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:36:30 -0500
Let us be the proof of the triumph
of
tinkering over theorizing. We are
the
strange attractors. :-)
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-haptic
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:42:32 -0500
My first stab at that would be a
proximity-driven
definition in which each member
depending on
internal learned contexts in
relationship to
the real time situation has different
values
for touching and what the signs
indicate,
typically, a polarity where on that
scale,
each gets a different value in a
highly
mixed set (different internal values
because
of different internal contexts, but
mediated
by awareness of the social context; in
Rome
do as Romans do, so the signs they emit
will
be mediated); and fairly similar if
flocking
(relatively similar values in the same
culture
in the same context).
Makes for a nicely creative scene of
networked
objects.
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-haptic
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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 06:29:32 -0700
Hi Everyone,
Busy weekend. While I have a lot of
reservations about Gudwin's
phraseology, I accept that the work was
probably done by someone who
is not a native speaker of English nor
a student of English, and, as
Len says, the models are
[reasonably--my adjective] sound. So I am
prepared to accept that model as an
extension of the semiotic
modelling we have already accepted.
(Okay, where's the earthquake,
trumpets and assorted special
effects?)
I also wanted to add that while teasing
out the point of divergence
between emotional non-verbal and
perhaps involuntary instances of
haptic activity and clearly volitional,
message (sign) emitting
activity will need further attention,
as will the discrimination
between sensing and emitting haptic
activity, I am pretty thoroughly
satisfied with Len's element listing in
the straw man schema.
Just so you know, this is the first
step I've ever taken down the
road to endorsing both a model of
perception and codification for how
intelligence can identified and how
knowledge can be represented, and
I'm not
especially happy about it. Locke, Kant, Berkeley,
Wittgenstein, Korzybski, and
Kierkegaard notwithstanding, I will keep
my reservations.
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