RE: [huml] Huml vs. HumanML

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

FWIW:  I haven't reviewed this paper, but a point to make about applicability:  

o  The focus of the HumanML primary schema design was to 
isolate and categorize aspects of human communication, as process 
and as state of the communicators (internally and externally) and 
the environment in which they communicate.  For example, a semiote 
has internal and external aspects that influence the semiotes ability 
to communication intensionally, and it operates within a semiotic 
environment that also has influence over different semiotes attempting 
to communicate.  

At one point, I posted a diagram that lays out 
these relationships.  This looks like high level stuff, but it 
expresses the important aspect of communicating entities within 
a dynamic environment which directs entities and which entities 
direct.  This is the essence of feedback-mediated evolution.  This 
process of evolution is key to the improvement of the process of 
communication and self-directed adaptation.  Modification of self 
and environment through exchange of signs is THE key idea.  HumanML 
is a tool for improving that process, not a tool for external 
control.

o  The schema categories are relatively independent of each other. 
This enables a derivative schema to derive element types from only 
the categories needed by that schemea and to create relationships 
that express the particular theory of human communication being 
schematized.  The HumanML project has a very keen interest in 
testing and improving the primary categories.

This can enable HumanML language families to be very broad and 
even to conflict among themselves as to the implications of the 
theories so expressed.  However, given the focus on observable 
aspects of communication, it is expected that results of observations 
can be fed back to the schema designers to improve their 
results and over time, some theories will converge.  Psychological 
theories are a good example where in our research, we found that 
the theories diverged signficantly.  In that sense, the creation 
of a HumanML derived schema is the codification of a theory.  

There is an old saying in the markup community:  a DTD is a 
theory about a document.  A HumanML schema is a theory about 
human communication.

len


From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga [mailto:rkthunga@interposting.com]

Hi Guys,

Just a few comments about the paper--although I'm not looking at the final
version on FTP (Sylvia's folder?).

1)
HumanML: formal name of language.

huml (lowercase):  namespace prefix and name of discussion list  

Huml (uppercase):  root element of Primary Base Schema

Rex and I chatted about this Sunday, and we realized that we haven't been
making clear this distinction in the last several months--which we should
have.  I guess it's just tunnel vision on our parts.  If you guys don't get
time to do it, that's absolutely fine, but a suggestion is to change the
references from huml/HuML to HumanML, just so we are as internally
consistent as possible.

2)
Another thing Sylvia I believe--Psychology is certainly a disciple for
applicability for HumanML--you had exclamation points around it with my name
I believe? ;)

3)
A final issue is the formatting for some of the text is appearing off the
page--it may be just my version of Open Office or something.

The paper/presentation should be really nice!  Definitely looking forward to
seeing the final version.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>