OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

humanmarkup message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-human and humlNameElements

Title: PBS-Doc-human and humlNameElements
Hi Everyone,

This is what we had to say about the base unit. All I did was to take out the samples of extension elements that can be added from other schemata.. I left <xs:extension base="humlNameElements"> The rest of our discussions did not require any further changes that I could determine.

I suspect that, given the correspondence I have had the last few days, importing namespaces makes more sense than adding individual elements and we still do not have to enumerate those elements while making them available for use with our schema. There will certainly be reasons for adding individual elements and enumerations that might be duplicates in the Secondary in order to make them more easily understood as available in the Secondary.

Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human

             From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
             Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 06:58:39 -0700

      Good morning, Human Markup!


      This is a ComplexType, not abstract, belongs to the attribute group
      of humlIdentifierAtts and does not reference other elements.

      This is the largest single container in our language, and as Len
      correctly points out is possibly the root element of the schema. I
      would say it is.

      Isn't it odd that the very crux of our effort has so little that it
      is appropriate to say about it? It will require a name which is to
      say that the collection of characteristics for each particular
      instance of this element will define a name, and this name will have
      the type humlNameAtts.

      This is a true case of less equalling more because the less we say
      about this element here, the more characteristics it can contain. I
      briefly thought that we might want to allow for another element which
      I would call agent or humanAgent to represent bots, but decided that
      that would add too much overhead for distinguishing between the
      representation of an actual, currently living, biological human being
      and a software entity. Since both agents and humans will be compared
      against the identifying information they assert for themselves,
      taking all such entities at face value simplifies the task of
      handling and tracking interactive behavior while little purpose is
      served by adding another set of computations to recognize a
      distinction that will not matter to machines and can't be instantly
      verified by human end-users/clients.


Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human

             From: "James.Landrum" <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
             To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:56:52 -0500

      Perhaps this is a bit too picky, but I have a question for the TC:
      What is the HUML working definition for "Human" ("Human Being")?
       Most academics refer to human beings as "anatomically modern humans"
      e.g., living and dead members of the Genus Homo, Species sapiens,
      Subspecies sapiens: "Homo sapiens sapiens." or are we simply referring to
      Genus Homo and Species sapiens (Homo sapiens) as is the general trend?
      With regard for Anthropology discipline, and subfields of  Cultural
      Anthropology, Physical Anthropology, Biological Anthropology, Medical
      Anthropology, Paleoanthropology, Archaeology (ad infinitum), and also
      fields of Paleontology, Biology, Evolutionary Biology, etc., it is
      important to designate and define the scope and range of things human as
      those which are in some manner, shape, or form appurturrent to Homo
      sapiens sapiens. Note that there should also be schema for reference to
      other members of the Hominid line, particularly those from which Homo
      sapiens sapiens is descended (according to theories),  for example,  Home
      ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis (note other species as well,
      particularly the debate on Neanderthalensis)  and predecessors, e.g.,
      Australopithecines, and so forth. Please note that there is great debate
      regarding taxonomic and phylogenic classification of specimens within
      this arena.; researchers are, depending on perspective, embroiled in
      several controversies regarding the taxonomic and phylogenic trees,
      arguing (literally as well as figuratively) that one or more attributes
      of specimens are evidence for closer or more distant relationship and
      position on the tree(s). I need to summarize this anyway (for DANA and
      AnthML) so will prepare a short discussion and include diagrams and
      charts of the issues, drawing from the major papers on the topic.

Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human

             From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             To: "James.Landrum" <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>,Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:28:29 -0700

      Hi James,

      No, this is not too picky at all. In fact it is a good point, and one
      which, in dealing with the computing process and the web and xml in
      particular we haven't specified exactly how these academic
      necessities would be included. We have said that our vocabularies
      must not contradict or break existing, academically accepted schools
      of thought and classification systems, but for the purposes of
      building a workable language we have for the most part allowed that
      the language itself, and the computing environment is not capable of
      ascertaining the actual truth of any entity's assertion of being, or
      representing itself as, human. So, we reason, the less we concern
      ourselves with the factual definition of human, the easier will be
      the job of including or allowing for any and all such definitions
      which application builders wish to include in applications which use

      In terms of certification, authentication, security and the
      delegation of rights and privileges which are necessary for the
      societal use of the web, we have deferred, saying that our
      information will apply only to a greater depth of personal
      information beyond these legal and social necessities.

      In terms of what you are seeking, we have held that we should not
      enter into those debates. However, now that you are bringing it up,
      and this is exactly the time and place for this discussion, we need
      to decide.

      What we need in our Primary Base Schema is a definition that will
      support the uses reflected in these concerns which you bring forth. I
      would have to say that, given what I have just said, it would be good
      for you to suggest what you think, to the best of your knowledge,
      ought to be in a basic definition of the element human in order to
      make it useful and accurate for these purposes.

      So, I invite any all to join in and let us know what we need to specify here.


Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human

             From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
             To: "'James.Landrum'" <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>,Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:20:40 -0500

      It is a communicating entity with six basic senses.

      Define it for the application problem to be solved.
      In this initiative, it is human communications.  The
      other categories are modifiers of the means and ways
      of mediation.

      Somwhere back in the early archives is a thread on
      "what it means to be human".


Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human

             From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
             To: "'James.Landrum'" <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>,Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:04:19 -0500

      BTW:  I know that there are dogs that can
      meet that definition.   For our work, that
      doesn't matter.   One discovers that enumerated
      definitions are weak anyway because one can
      always find an exception that on surface
      examination, possesses most of the values,
      but fails on some major of minor point.
      That definition was orignally proposed because
      it matches the problem definition of the initiative.

      To be more precise, about all we could say is
      that to be human, one has human parents.  And
      then the cloning guys will out us.  So we move
      to, to be human is to have human genes.  And then
      the cloning guys will splice in pig genes and we
      will be outed again.  I don't think a set theory
      or mathematically precise definition will be
      prescriptive.   We end up back to an application
      or problem specific definition.


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