humanmarkup message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-signal
- 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 15:49:56 -0700
Title: PBS-Doc-signal
Very little changed here except changing
humlIdentifierAtts to humlCommAtts and shortened the definition. If we
need to we can revisit the concept in the public review, but I think
it is pretty sound.
No double meaning meant.
Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema
- signal
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 08:09:34 -0700
Hi Everyone,
We're baaack!
This element is a ComplexType,
abstract, does not reference other
elements. I'm not sure, as I am not
sure with many other elements,
whether we want to stipulate that it is
not used by other elements,
although for these three semiotics
elements, we may want to give it
more thought.
It is described/defined as: Human
Signal An interruption in a field
of constant energy transfer. An example
is the 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.
I will defer to the final determination
of the group, but I think we
may want to refine this a bit. Oddly
enough, I think that could
result is a shorter description to
something like: a perceptible
change in an environmental factor that
can be used to transfer
meaning.
In any event, it is also a member of
the group of elements that
shares the attribute group:
humlIdentifierAtts.
My trepidation with the concept of use
by other elements is that of
finding a way to specify that while
atomistic in the Primary Base
Schema, all elements in this schema are
meant to be used by child
elements in the succeeding schemata. We
might want to say that the
elements in this schema are intended to
be used to derive the
elements of the Secondary Base Schema,
which in turn are meant to be
referenced by the Application
Area-Specific Schemata member elements.
Ciao,
Rex
--
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - signal
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:25:00 -0500
I'll go with the simpler
explanation.
Some further questions. Another
example
often given is a tapping, eg, someone
tapping
a pencil on a desk. Now, does
this have to
be purposeful to be a signal?
IOW, does bored
reflexive tapping make it as a signal,
or does
it have to be purposeful. Another
example
is "PSSST!" This
doesn't qualify as an energy
disruption. It is the purposeful
pursing of
the lips and blowing air to get
someone's attention.
So to be a signal, does the sign have
to be:
1. Purposeful
2. Directed toward a
receiver(s)
len
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - signal
From: James Landrum <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:11:57 -0500
Hmmmm, How deep should we delve
here?
A signal is an action or event, a
stimulus that precipitates one or more
reactions, inclusive of observance
without outwardly visible response.
E.G., (1) the events of 9/11 signaled a
major change in US security
policy. (2) Igor observed the monster
crush Dr. Frankenstein's head to a
glutinous, mottle of red-gray pulp, as
though it were an overripe melon.
The action an inescapable product
of the monster's rage, the message
(signal) clear enough for even the
simplest of minds to comprehend, the
monster had
had enough of the mad doctor's genius. Despite the
terrifying circumstance, Igor stood
there immobile, in an intractable
stupor, doing nothing but knowing all
the while, even as the monster
continued bashing the unfortunate
doctor into an unrecognizable mash of
blood, flesh, and bones, that he was
next in line. Deep within Igor's
mind a synapse flickered, sending a
message (signal) to his conscience
that despite the brutality the monster
was capable of and would soon
direct upon him, that in no small way
it was righteous anger on the
monster's part, for Igor had helped
Frankenstein create this monster,
and the monster , now self-aware, would
not allow such insanity to be
perpertrated
further upon himself or others, and his impending doom, was
therefore, both just and sorely
deserved.
Perhaps a bit long-winded (and perhaps
too graphically violent as well)
bvut the piont of the above points (1
and 2) are that signals are not
mere
actions, they are events of themselves and can be both objectively
as well as subjectively observed and
interpreted, but perhaps just as
important, a signal is, in the human
context at least, more often an
intentional action to of a transmitter
to communicate, to transmit
information in a salient (meaningful)
way, so as to evoke one or more
anticipated reactions from the
receiver. This, of course, is inclusive
of that often-observed
miscommunitation, the :missed signal.
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - signal
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'James Landrum' <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:16:49 -0500
The term "signal" in this
application is constrained
quite deliberately to a limited
definition. We got
it from the literature, not the natural
language.
Delving deeply is not warranted.
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - signal
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>,'James Landrum'
<James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:58:34 -0700
While I understand Len's reply,
especially since I am about as deeply
immersed in the semiotic literature and
the history of the semiotic
schools of thought as it is possible to
be right now, I also
understand the points James was making.
So what I want to say about
this is that the rest of the world
still is not semiotically
literate, and the kind of points James
brings up are the kinds of
responses we are likely to receive from
the most educated and
literate of audience.
This is what I meant when I mentioned
that we need to be able sell
HumanMarkup as well as invent it. Now,
what I would hope to see is
for both of you to approach this
exchange from the other's viewpoint
if that is possible and is not too much
to ask, which I would
understand as well.
This would be especially helpful to me,
since I am working on
explaining this entire set of elements
(the semiotic ones). I think
we would be well advised to deal with
this aspect of our work now,
while the trail of possible
misunderstandings is fresh.
Ciao,
Rex
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC