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: [huml] Re: [huml-comment] Conflict Interpretation - Initial Prototypeand Use Case

Ahhh....cool, Ranjeeth,

Rather than noodle approach or app design, I think it is wiser to see 
if I understand your objective correctly. (However, one word to the 
display design: cellpadding.)

Is this an attempt to pull a model (interpretation) of a given 
conflict from a written statement (communique-communication)?

If that is close to correct, then I think that should be a bit more 
clear. I think this is a good way to use the PBS, and I think it will 
give us two kinds of information.

1. How people express strong feelings/belief.

2. How others interpret those expressions.

As such, it would actually be an excellent way to discover how to 
proceed with this tool, particularly by building a database of the 
correlations between statements (and the vocabularies used) and 
interpretations (and the vocabularies used). That could be used as a 
kind of guide for learning how these concepts get aligned by real 
people out in the world.

There are a couple of things I think need to better understood by 
potential participants.

The word communique carries connotations I have discussed before. I 
think a neutral term is better, like expression or statement.

The sample communique/expression/statement should either be included 
in a sample filled form, and/or two samples should be given--this one 
and another, perhaps taken from history, such as an early statement 
by Alabama Gov. George Wallace about segregation--so that it is clear 
that the samples are just samples, and not an indication of what 
you/we want respondents to say or how to say it.

Regardless, it would be good to also make it clear that we will be 
learning from our interpreters as well as from our 

It would probably be a good idea to allow participants to optionally 
self-describe their own backgrounds, and where they live, so we can 
associate a bit more context with their expressions/statements, 
which, as long as it is voluntary, will tell us a bit of social, 
economic and cultural information.

The more I think about it, the better this whole idea works for me 
because we are not introducing any particular rubrics or frameworks 
by which anyone could purposely skew or slant the results obtained 
because we are learning about the process as much or more than about 
the participants beliefs, intents, etc., or analytical beliefs, 
intents, etc.

In fact, recruiting interpretators could also recruit members. (Is 
"Interpretator" a known word or one constructed from Interpretative? 
I don't find it in my dictionary, but that doesn't mean anything 
other than that it just isn't in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate 
Dictionary, of which there is now a tenth in any event.)

Last note: It should also be possible to learn about conflicts as 
close to home as urban neighborhood gang turf wars (bloods, crips, 
drive-bys) or suburban conflicts over late-night barking dogs and 
uncollected trash left curbside as well as historical 
political/religious conflicts such as the Israeli- Palestinian 

I think this is great idea, Ranjeeth, and will go a long way toward 
gaining us credibility for having the common sense to frame the 
concept in the context of gathering information about how to deal 
with conflicts by understanding them. It also has the great virtue of 
giving us an unoffensive response to groups who will tell us that 
"Everybody knows...Saddam has these weapons...the Palestinian people 
have endured decades of Israeli Occupation...there can be no 
negotiations with Terrorists...they do our homies, what they 
expec'?..." To which we can "Well, if everybody knows it, you 
wouldn't mind just writing it down for us, would you? ...just so we 
can be SURE we understand, right?"

Pretty tough to say no to that, and once ya got 'em talkin' they 
ain't shootin' are they?

Good work,

P.S. Apart from your own goals for developing this, in the context of 
the Conflict Resolution in e-Gov/Diplomatic applications, I think it 
would also be a good tool for finding out how other folks out there 
would construct their own tags by asking, say, post grad psych 
Masters candidates to mark up a set of 
communiques/expressions/statements with their own tags--which also 
fits into the LMNL framework of overlapping non-hierarchical 
vocabularies. Then you the the Doctoral candidates to analyze that 
for their disserations. Fiendish, eh?

At 1:18 AM -0500 2/16/03, Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga wrote:
>Hi All,
>I am sending a potential application of HumanML for use in conflict
>I'm including links to a prototype images from the forms I am creating.
>Rex:  I hope we can work together a bit, so I can ensure that this will be
>in line with the style guidelines of the HumanMarkup.org website itself,
>when I have the prototype finished.
>(NOTE: These aren't LIVE forms yet.)
>These two forms are self-explanatory.  The first form, a submittor sends a
>communique to several recepients and interpretators.  The second form shows
>how an interpretator can embed HumanML information within the original
>communique, to provide additional information and perspective.
>I stuck with using only Primary Base Schema elements at this stage, to
>demonstrate what can be done with it alone--that's what we need to focus on
>right now, as Len and Rex mentioned.  As you can see, they are represented
>with simple text containers that could contain written notes.  These can be
>very useful data attached to the interpretation, to be able to track and
>compare interpretations of parties involved.
>As for the actual TEXT markup in the conflict2.htm document however, we will
>likely run into clumsiness using XML, as I mentioned in my last post.  We
>will have to develop hacks and workarounds to ensure XML compatibility as
>you suggest Rex, but I do look forward to LMNL solution. 
>Ol' fashion HTML?  Works better than XML...Sylvia:  I guess I now realize
>that overlapping, arbitrary tagging is actually a feature, not a bug ;)
>Manos:  From my experience with RDF, the multiple layers that I describe
>would be possible but I think a bit difficult also. 
>Rex suggested that I check with you, to make sure that what you see might
>also be representable in RDF.
>Based on your feedback to me Rex, I am NOT at this point delving into the
>levels past interpretation--yet.  I wanted to keep it REAL simple and
>straightforward, to show how HumanML can be used to clarify the
>interpretative process.  If this is clear, then we can move on, incorporated
>Secondary Base Schema elements as they develop.
>I have started to translate some of my earlier thoughts into a UML sequence
>based on Manos's suggestion using virtual models that Rob would offer,
>representing different parties.  In the meantime, I am considering the
>RESUBMISSION It could have still shots of a two virtual parties interfacing
>in dialogue.
>I'm leaning towards keeping it real simple right now (i.e. the first one)
>but please let me know how much time you have, and whether the concept I
>describe makes enough sense for either of you to describe.  I haven't yet
>finalized the format--I'll get that as soon as I can in the next day or two
>(please do let me know if I am running past your absolute timeline is
>James/Sylvia--I want to make sure you have my materials in time for review
>and adjustment). 
>I'll adjust accordingly.  If you would like to present a working prototype
>as well, definitely let me know.  I'm very hopeful I can have that ready
>Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.454 / Virus Database: 253 - Release Date: 2/10/2003
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

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